Supreme Court notice to Centre, IITs on reservation policy

The bench clarified that it would issue notice only on the first prayer, that is, regarding the implementation of the reservation policy in the IITs.

Published: 25th November 2021 08:32 AM  |   Last Updated: 25th November 2021 08:32 AM   |  A+A-

Supreme Court

Supreme Court (File Photo| EPS)

By Express News Service

NEW DELHI:  The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Central government and 23 IITs on a petition seeking directions to implement reservation policy in admission to research degree programmes and recruitment of faculty.

A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, B R Gavai and BV Nagarathna was hearing a petition filed by academic-cum-researcher Sachchida Nand Pandey, who has sought directions for the Centre to evolve a mechanism for resolving the complaints of harassment by students and scholars with transparency and in a time-bound manner. 

Besides, the plea seeks direction to the IITs to constitute a committee of technical experts to review the performance of existing faculty, violation of reservation norms and to facilitate the formation of a transparent recruitment policy.

The bench clarified that it would issue notice only on the first prayer, that is, regarding the implementation of the reservation policy in the IITs. Pandey contends that the admission process to research programmes and the appointment of faculty members to IITs is unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary.

As per the current reservation policy, SCs, STs and Other Backward Classes (OBC) are to be provided with 15 per cent, 7.5 per cent, and 27 per cent reservation, respectively. The petitioner, however, alleged that in last five years, IITs have admitted only 9.1 per cent, 2.1 per cent  and 23.2 per cent of SC, ST and OBC scholars respectively.

High Court misinterpreted order: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday observed that Allahabad High Court has misinterpreted its order by not creating magisterial courts for trying cases against MPs/MLAs and allowing sessions courts to hear such cases instead.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India N V Ramana and also including Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant told the high court’s counsel, “Don’t misinterpret our orders. We know what our orders are. We allowed creation of magisterial courts. If you don’t create magisterial courts and give the cases to in-charge sessions judges, for how many years will the cases drag on? Was it our intention?”

The high court’s counsel contended that nearly 13,000 cases are pending in Uttar Pradesh against sitting and former MPs and MLAs and added that there are 63 special courts for these cases. The bench emphasised that its previous order was clear on the constitution of as many sessions courts and magisterial courts as required and the high court misinterpreted the order.


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp