MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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