Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

Supreme Court Strikes Down Minimum Marks Criterion for Sports Quota Admission, Cites Violation of Equality Principle

04 September 2024 11:01 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set a significant precedent by striking down a controversial minimum marks criterion imposed for admission under the sports quota in engineering courses. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, emphasized that the criterion contradicts the very purpose of promoting sports and sportsmanship through the quota.

The appellant had challenged the imposition of a minimum 75% aggregate marks requirement for claiming admission under the 2% sports quota. The Punjab & Haryana High Court had earlier rejected the appellant’s writ petition, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, writing the judgment, observed, “The objective of introducing the sports quota, i.e., 2% of intake, was to promote and encourage those who excelled and gained a certain degree of prescribed proficiency and achievement in defined competitive sports. The introduction of this quota was to promote sports and sportsmanship in educational institutions. No doubt, the state acts within its rights to prescribe a certain minimum eligibility standard, but that is not to say such a condition would necessarily have to be the same as that applicable to general candidates. The imposition of the minimum 75% eligibility condition, therefore, does not subserve the object of introducing the sports quota but is, rather destructive of it; the criterion, in that sense, subverted the object and is discriminatory; it therefore falls afoul of the equality clause, in Article 14 of the Constitution.”

The judgment highlighted the importance of treating unequals differently and underscored that a uniform eligibility criterion could lead to the exclusion of meritorious sportspersons. The court pointed out that the state has lowered the eligibility criterion for candidates falling under vertical classification, making the dissimilarity in treatment evident and discriminatory.

As a result of the judgment, the remaining vacant sports quota seat(s) will now be filled based on the standards specified in the sports policy of the UT of Chandigarh. The court directed that candidates who were rejected due to the 75% marks criterion should have qualified according to the preceding academic year’s criterion for the balance sports quota seat(s). However, previously admitted candidates will not be affected by the judgment.

This landmark judgment is expected to have a significant impact on admission processes under sports quotas across educational institutions, emphasizing the need to align eligibility criteria with the objectives of promoting sports and sportsmanship rather than mirroring academic merit.

D.D-9.08.2023

DEV GUPTA vs PEC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY & ORS.

Latest Legal News