Pre-Book your session Now!

Madras High Court refused expansion of seats for Law admission in Tamil Nadu State

Team SoOLEGAL 31 Jul 2017 12:10pm

Madras High Court refused expansion of seats for Law admission in Tamil Nadu State

Madras High Court, lately, rejected the petition filed by a student demanding a direction of setting up additional seats for general category admissions in Dr. Ambedkar Law University. The petitioner stated that an unreasonable number of seats are reserved for multiple categories and due to the reason; she was rejected in the admission process.

 The Court was hearing a petition recorded by Ms. S. Aishwarya challenging the Reservation Act 1994, wherein 69% of seats are reserved for various trivial communities. She stated that she was wrongly precluded from claiming a seat because 69% of seats are reserved for Backward communities, Schedule castes and Schedule Tribes, instead of 50%, which is totally unfair.

The state has given reservation up to 69% in light of an enactment passed in 1994. Ms S. Aishwarya filed a petition challenging this Act and the court has also directed the Backward Classes Commission of the State of Tamil Nadu to gather information for rationalizing the reservation of 69%. Since this order wasn’t carried out, another petition was filed. The Supreme Court had then guided the State to form additional seats, as had been done in the last 20 years.                

The petitioner’s demands to minimize reservation cut-off percentage to 50%, relied on the Order passed by Apex Court in 2014. In August 2014, the Apex Court instructed the State to create additional seats in light of the orders passed by Supreme Court in the case of Indira Sawney V. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 477) in which communal reservation shall not go over 50%.  

The Bench headed by Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu in any case, declined to permit the current petition, observing that the request referred to by the petitioner was just pertinent to that specific year.

Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu, neglected the petitioner’s request for creating additional seats for this year after observing the fact that the above said order, passed by Supreme Court for creating additional seats was just related to that particular year, and not for lifetime, therefore, the petitioner cannot approach the court and look for expansion of seats for this current year as well.     

Tagged: Madras High Court   Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu   Law  
Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
Featured Members view all

New Members view all


C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work









Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.