Chandigarh PG medical seats to stay with all-India pool, says High Court
A division bench of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu and Justice H.S. Grewal dismissed the petition filed by Avijit Chander and others, who had opposed a June 3 notification that diverted unfilled UT Pool seats at Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), Chandigarh, to the AIQ pool. The petitioners had argued these seats should have gone to the Institutional Preference (IP) category under the state quota for local candidates.
Their counsel, senior advocate Gurminder Singh, said, 'While taking a complete U-turn… without any authority of law and also in complete violation of Shrey Goel's judgment, respondent No. 2 has issued the impugned public notice… wherein vacant U.T. Pool seats have been diverted to A.I.Q. against [the] maximum limit of 50%.'
But the court found no merit in the claim, ruling that the matter of residence-based reservation in PG medical courses had already been settled by the Supreme Court. 'This Court is not persuaded with the arguments raised by learned senior counsel… the legal issue has already been adjudicated,' said Justice Sindhu.
The case has its roots in the Supreme Court's January 29 verdict in Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel & Others, which struck down the practice of reserving PG medical seats on the basis of residence in UT Chandigarh. The apex court had ruled that such a reservation was 'not permissible', but allowed students already admitted or graduated to remain unaffected.
Following this, the Chandigarh administration initially said in April that vacant UT Pool seats would be moved to the IP category. However, in a fresh notice on June 3, it reassigned them to the AIQ instead, sparking the present legal challenge.
The petitioners argued that the administration's about-turn violated both the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court ruling and exceeded the 50% limit allowed for AIQ seats. But the high court noted that the seat matrix – 75 for AIQ and 76 for State Quota (plus four EWS) – remained within permissible limits, and that the reallocation aligned with the Supreme Court's broader emphasis on merit-based admissions.
'Consequently, there is no option, except to dismiss the petition,' the bench concluded in its order, delivered on June 10.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
36 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Calcutta HC division bench refuses to interfere with single-judge WBJEE result order
A division bench of the Calcutta High Court in a hearing on Thursday (August 21, 2025) refused to interfere with an earlier single-judge order that directed the State to prepare a new merit list and publish the results of the West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination by August 22, providing 7% reservation to Other Backward Classes (OBC) candidates recognised pre-2010. The Calcutta High Court in May 2024 had struck down all OBC certificates issued in West Bengal since 2010. The matter surrounding revisions in the State government's OBC list is currently pending with the Supreme Court. The declaration of results of WBJEE, an entrance exam for undergraduate engineering, technology, architecture, and pharmacy courses in West Bengal's State-run and State-aided universities, have been inordinately delayed this year since it was conducted on April 27 this year. 'The West Bengal Joint Entrance Examinations Board shall recast the merit list and publish a fresh panel, providing 7% reservation for the 66 classes of O.B.C. candidates as recognised by the West Bengal Backward Classes Department prior to 2010,' a single judge bench of Justice Kausik Chanda had said in its order on August 7. The court had also directed the government to complete the aforementioned exercise and release the revised merit list within a period of 15 days from the date of the order, that is by August 22. The division bench of Justices Sujoy Paul and Smita Das De refused to interfere in the order passed by Justice Chanda on Thursday. Meanwhile, the WBJEE Board issued a circular on August 18 directing candidates to mention their caste/tribe/community names and upload their Scheduled Caste, Schedule Tribes and OBC certificates on the official website. The window to do so closed on Thursday. The delay in WBJEE results led to protests in political circles, with the Leader of Opposition of the West Bengal Assembly Suvendu Adhikari warning on August 18 that Bharatiya Janata Party legislators will hold dharnas outside the Education Department headquarters if the results are not published by this week. 'We want the results to be out as soon as possible. We also believe that authorities have not given this issue enough importance. The only thing of consequence which has happened after prolonged legal battles is the delay in our results, which has caused considerable anxiety in us,' 17-year-old engineering aspirant Shithan Roy told The Hindu. He added that many who are waiting for the results are struggling mentally due to the uncertainty. 'We feel unheard and uncared for,' Mr. Roy said.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Day before SIR hearing, EC files compliance report before SC
New Delhi: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has filed a compliance report before the Supreme Court ahead of Friday's hearing on the ongoing revision of Bihar's electoral rolls, which has drawn scrutiny after large-scale deletions. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) A person aware of the development told Hindustan Times that the Commission has submitted a 'three-to-four page compliance report which says that all the suggestions made by the Supreme Court on August 14 have been complied with promptly.' The source added that the ECI has also placed on record a status report, giving details of the directions issued to the District Electoral Officers (DEOs) as well as the reports received back from them. 'The Commission had asked all 38 DEOs to furnish the status of compliance with the Court's orders, and these have now been compiled and submitted,' the person said. CEC Gyanesh Kumar, at a press conference on Sunday had said that the Commission has complied with SC's directives in '56 hours.' The Court, on August 14, had recorded the ECI's consent to adopt interim measures designed to improve transparency in the electoral roll revision. These measures require the online publication of the names of nearly sixty-five lakh voters who appeared in the 2025 rolls but are missing from the draft rolls. Each district's website is to host booth-wise data, searchable by EPIC number, along with reasons for exclusion. The Bench had set a deadline of August 19 for completing the exercise. To ensure that the exercise is not limited to digital publication, the Bench also directed wide publicity. 'The lists must be publicised in vernacular newspapers with wide circulation and broadcast on television and radio,' the Court noted, adding that district-level officials should also use their social media platforms to alert voters. Further, the booth-level officers were instructed to display the excluded-voter lists at Block Development Offices or Panchayat offices, so that citizens in rural areas could physically inspect them. The Bench also required that the notices should expressly inform citizens that they may file claims for inclusion in the rolls, accompanied by a copy of their Aadhaar card. A consolidated state-level list is also to be made available on the website of the Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar. 'The idea is to ensure that no eligible voter is left without recourse,' the Bench had observed while fixing the matter for monitoring on August 22. Friday's hearing, advanced to 12 pm from the initially scheduled 2 pm, is expected to be brief as Justice Bagchi, who leads the Bench, has to preside over a special bench at 3 pm. 'The court might give further directions after taking a note of the report,' the person cited earlier said.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Can't let Governors sit on bills indefinitely: SC
New Delhi: Permitting governors to sit indefinitely on bills passed by state legislatures may render the democratic process and the will of the people 'defunct', the Supreme Court observed on Thursday, as it continued hearing the presidential reference on whether the courts can prescribe timelines for gubernatorial and presidential assent. The Supreme Court building in New Delhi. (HT Photo) A constitution bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Atul S Chandurkar is examining President Droupadi Murmu's Article 143 reference made in May. The reference seeks clarity on the top court's April 8 ruling which, for the first time, laid down timelines for governors and the president to decide on state bills pending before them. 'If a particular function is entrusted to the governor and for years he withholds it, will that also be beyond the scope of judicial review of this court? When this court has set aside constitutional amendments taking away judicial review as violating the basic structure, can we now say that however high a constitutional authority may be, courts will still be powerless if it does not act?' the bench asked. The bench also pressed the Centre to explain what remedy exists when governors indefinitely delay action. 'Under Article 200, if we hold that the governor has unlimited power to withhold a bill for time immemorial, what is the safeguard for a duly elected legislature? Suppose a legislature elected by a two-thirds majority passes a bill unanimously, and the governor simply sits on it, it would make the legislature totally defunct,' it further remarked. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, countered that while the court's concern may be justified, it cannot assume jurisdiction to set time limits where the Constitution is silent. 'A justification can never confer jurisdiction. Every problem in this country may not have a solution in the Supreme Court. Some problems must find solutions within the system,' he said. According to Mehta, the solution was in the 'political process, not judicial directions'. He argued that chief ministers could engage directly with governors, prime ministers, or even the President to resolve such impasses. 'Such issues have been arising for decades but have always been resolved through political statesmanship and maturity. Why cannot we trust other constitutional functionaries? The remedy ultimately will lie with Parliament by way of an amendment, not by judicial legislation,' Mehta submitted. At this, the bench interjected: 'When there is no outer limit, can a constitutional interpretation be left to a vacuum? Though a time limit may not be prescribed, there must be some way the process works. There cannot be a situation where not acting on a bill itself is a full stop… nothing further.' The bench also questioned whether judicial review could be completely excluded. The court observed: 'The decision may not be justiciable, but the decision-making process certainly falls within the ambit of judicial review.' Mehta, however, warned that opening the door to scrutiny would lead to 'multilevel challenges' at every stage of a governor's or president's decision under Articles 200 and 201. 'Our problem is every step before the final decision will also be challenged because they can also constitute a 'decision',' he argued. He cited judicial precedents where the court held that fixed timelines for criminal trials could not be judicially prescribed, to reinforce his submission that timelines in constitutional processes too cannot be judicially imposed. But the bench pressed further, citing petitions already filed by Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal. 'Suppose a decision is not taken for four years. What happens to the democratic set-up of the government? What happens to the will of the two-thirds majority of the legislature?' it asked. Mehta responded with an analogy: 'Take the example of a trial pending for 10 years. Can the President step in and declare that the punishment is deemed to have been undergone because the judiciary has delayed? Separation of powers means some issues are non-justiciable.' The court, however, made it clear that it was not dealing with a hypothetical concern. 'We are having petitions from at least four states,' the court underlined. The presidential reference, prompted by the court's April judgment in the Tamil Nadu case, asks whether the judiciary can impose timelines on constitutional authorities like governors and the president when the Constitution itself is silent. In that ruling, a two-judge bench also fixed a three-month deadline for the president to decide on bills referred by a governor, and one month for a governor to act on re-enacted bills. It had even invoked Article 142 to deem 10 Tamil Nadu bills as assented to, after holding that the governor's prolonged inaction was 'illegal'. Mehta criticised the notion of deemed assent. 'Deemed assent would mean your lordships substituted yourselves for the governor and declared the assent deemed to have been granted. Article 142 cannot be used to amend the Constitution,' he argued. The bench, however, maintained that courts cannot abdicate their role as custodians of the Constitution. 'Every wrong has to have a remedy. Whether the hands of the constitutional court will be tied when a constitutional functionary refuses to discharge their function without any valid reason? Whether the court will say we are powerless?' the bench asked. Arguments on the reference will continue on August 26.
