Breaking: Madras HC reserves judgment in pleas for implementation of 50% OBC quota for State-surrendered medical seats in All India Quota

The First Bench of the Madras High Court today reserved its judgment on pleas filed by various political parties as well as the Tamil Nadu Government protesting the Centre's non-implementation of 50% OBC reservation for State-surrendered All India Quota (AIQ) medical seats..After a marathon hearing that started this noon and carried on till this evening, the Bench of Chief Justice AP Sahi and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy informed that the judgment is likely to be delivered on July 27. .The petitioners contend that if the Centre's reservation policy of 27% Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation is applicable to medical colleges under the Central Government, the State's reservation policy would apply to non-Central medical institutions i.e. State Government and private medical and dental colleges. .As such, the petitioners argue that in Tamil Nadu, a 69% reservation policy would apply to State-surrendered seats in the AIQ, with 50% being the quota for OBC candidates (Backward Classes + Most Backward Classes)..In a unique turn of events, various major political parties of Tamil Nadu, including the ruling AIADMK and its opposition, the DMK, have moved writ petitions over the issue..DMK moves Madras HC against Centre's refusal to implement 50% OBC quota for state-surrendered medical seats.Appearing for the Central Government today, ASGI R Sankaranarayanan asserted that it was a misnomer to use terms such as "surrendered" or "contributed", and that what was under consideration was a "transfer" of seats from the State to the Central Government. .He argued that when the seats are so "transferred", there is a de-reservation that takes place and that the State reservation policies would not apply unless these medical seats are transferred back to the State. .Appearing of the Medical Council of India (MCI) Advocate VP Raman made submissions on the interpretation of Regulation 9 (IV) of applicable MCI regulations which concerned the application of State reservation policies. It was contended that this Regulation does not apply to All India Quota seats. .Among the various counsel who appeared for the petitioner-side were Senior Advocate P Wilson, assisted by Advocate Richard Wilson (for the DMK), Senior Advocate AR L Sundaresan (for the AIADMK), Advocate K Balu (for Anbumani Ramadoss, PMK Party) and Advocates Stalin Abhimanyu, P Dinesh Kumar and others. .Advocate General Vijay Narayan appeared for the Tamil Nadu Government, which has filed its own writ petition on the issue. Government Pleader Mala appeared for the Puducherry Government. ."Entire Tamil Nadu is against the Centre (in this case). All the political parties are standing in one line. They will rise on this issue", Wilson remarked as the fag end of the hearing approached today. .He also contended that the Court ought to impose costs on the respondents in the matter for continuing to deny lawful reservations to OBC candidates. .During the course of his submissions, Wilson asserted that the Central Government and the MCI are only trustees or counselling authorities when it comes to filling in the State-surrendered seats. He contended that they had no power to pick and choose between the State and Central reservation policy..Advocate General Vijay Narayan referred to the counter-affidavit filed by the DGHS earlier, wherein they had stated that the Centre was willing to to carry out State-specific OBC reservation on all available AIQ seats, with a condition that the overall reservation will not exceed 50%. .Health Ministry proposes to apply State-specific reservation for OBC on All India Quota medical seats up to 50%: Madras HC told.AG Narayan went on to dispute the Central Government's stance that the reservation cannot exceed 50% on account of certain Supreme Court precedents by pointing out that the Supreme Court has said in later judgments that the 50% limit can be expanded if there is quantitative data to show that a higher percentage of reservation in the State is required..Senior Counsel AR L Sundaresan contended that the Centre cannot introduce a rider of 50% when it comes to applying reservations to defeat a percentage that has got a statutory force i.e. 69% in Tamil Nadu. .For the PMK's Anubani Ramadoss, Advocate K Balu highlighted that from a social justice perspective, in this year alone, 13,238 seats were lost because of non-reservation. The entire State is getting affected if the reservation is not being implemented, he said. He, however, added that the plea moved by Ramadoss was slightly different from the other pleas in that it focused on the implementation of the 27% Centre-prescribed OBC reservation. .Whereas GP Mala, appearing for Puducherry, sought the Court's indulgence to file a counter affdavit in the matter, the Bench declined to accede to the request, orally observing that the Supreme Court had tasked the High Court to decide on the pleas expeditiously. .However, the Bench added that written submissions may be filed, before closing the hearing and fixing July 27 for the delivery of judgment.