Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

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.

Similar News