Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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