Delhi HC Issues Notice on PIL Seeking 10% Quota for EWS Students in Jamia
The reservation is sought in view of the provisions of Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 under Article 15(6) of the Constitution.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice on the plea of a law student, who has sought 10 per cent reservation for students belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category in the Jamia Millia Islamia. A division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad sought response from the Centre, the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the varsity, filed as Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
Senior advocate Arun Bhardwaj and Advocates Akash Vajpai and Ayush Saxena appeared for law student Akansha Goswami. The reservation is sought in view of the provisions of Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 under Article 15(6) of the Constitution.
It is the petitioner’s case to implement the letter UGC had, on January 18, 2019, issued requesting Vice Chancellors of all Central universities, including Jamia Millia Islamia, to implement 10 per cent of EWS reservation at the time of admission from the academic year 2019-2020.
Goswami’s PIL claims that Jamia Millia Islamia issued a press release on February 5, 2019, refusing to implement the reservation quota for EWS students “citing its status as Minority Institution” under Article 30 of the Constitution.
The plea seeks direction on the varsity to withdraw its admission prospectus it had issued for the academic year 2023-2024 for undergraduate and graduate courses without making any provision for the 10 per cent EWS reservation and issue it afresh after making provisions for EWS reservation. Jamia lost its identity by its conversion into the central university which was established by the Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988, the plea said.
“It is evident from the fact that Jamia Millia Islamia Act, 1988, had dissolved Jamia Millia Islamia Society and its memorandum of association and incorporated those provisions in the act which were completely different from its earlier MOA,” the plea states.