'Reservation not at odds with merit': What the Supreme Court said while upholding OBC quota in NEET

The Supreme Court of India. (File image)

Upholding the validity of the OBC quota in NEET for admission to undergraduate and post-graduate medical courses, the Supreme Court has pointed out that reservation, as affirmative action, is not against the idea of merit.

“Reservation is not at odds with merit but furthers its distributive consequences,” a bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna said in the judgment pronounced on January 20.

While the court had upheld the constitutional validity of the OBC reservation, the debate on EWS quota and its requirements will be heard at length on a later date. However, admission for this year was required to carry on in accordance with both these quotas.

Explaining its detailed rationale behind upholding the OBC reservation, the judgment penned by Justice Chandrachud, and delivered on January 20, notes that mere performance in an exam cannot be the sole indicator of merit which must also factor in lived experiences of the candidates.

In Supreme Court’s words, “Competitive examinations assess basic current competency to allocate educational resources but are not reflective of excellence, capabilities and potential of an individual which are also shaped by lived experiences, subsequent training and individual character.”

Performance in an exam falls short of factoring in and reflecting the “social, economic and cultural advantage that accrues to certain classes and contributes to their success in such examination.”

Giving wider context to the importance of reservation for certain sections of the society, the apex court added that marks and examination scores alone cannot be seen to be the definitive indicator of merit. “High scores in an examination are not proxy for merit,” it said.

“Merit should be socially contextualized and reconceptualized as an instrument that advances social goods like equality that we as a society value. In such a context, reservation is not at odds with merit but furthers its distributive consequences”