BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO………OF 2024

Ravi Kumar… ......................................................................... PETITIONER

V.

University…....................................................................... RESPONDENT

FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENT PP

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. CASE LAWS 4

II. LEGISLATIONS 5

III. LEGAL JOURNALS 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS 7

ISSUES RAISED 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10

PRAYER 17

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBRIVATION EXPANSION

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

Arts. Articles

Edn. Edition

Hon’ble Honorable

No. Number

Ors. Others

Pg Page Number

SCC Supreme Court cases

SC Supreme Court

U/Art. Under Article

v. Versus

Vol Volume

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

[I]CASE LAWS

S.NO CASE TITLE CITATION

1. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 55 OF 2019

2 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477

3 Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1641

4 M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212

5 Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1 138

6 Chandrakanta v. Union of India AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 1127

7 Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India 1984 AIR 1420

8 M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore 1963 AIR 649

9 T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of (2002) 8 SCC 481

Karnataka
10 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal 1985 SCC (3) 545
Corporation

4
 [II] LEGISLATIONS

S.No TITLE OF LEGISLATION

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

2. CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

3. DURGA DAS BASU, INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

4. K.C JOSHI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA

[III] LEGAL JOURNALS.

S.No TITLE OF JOURNALS

1. All India Reporter (AIR)

2. Supreme Court Cases (SCC)

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indus has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Indus which reads as follows:

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the
nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be
appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.”

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Ravi Kumar, a student hailing from a marginalized community, seeks admission to a prestigious
university known for historically implementing a reservation policy in accordance with
constitutional provisions. The university, however, finds itself entangled in legal complexities
following a recent legal challenge popularly known as the Janhit Abhiyan case.

The Janhit Abhiyan case raised pertinent concerns about the indiscriminate application of
reservation policies without nuanced considerations of the specific socio-economic conditions
prevailing among different groups. In response to these concerns, the court in the Janhit
Abhiyan case emphasized the necessity of adopting a more refined approach, taking into
account the intersectionality of factors such as economic status and educational backwardness.

Against this backdrop, Ravi Kumar's application for admission becomes a focal point for the
university to reassess its existing admission policies. The university is now confronted with the
task of aligning its policies with the recent legal developments and the nuanced approach
advocated in the Janhit Abhiyan case.

Ravi Kumar's case raises crucial legal issues, including the constitutional validity of the
university's existing reservation policies. The challenge is to evaluate whether these policies,
rooted in historical decisions like the famous Indra Sawhney case, still stand constitutionally
sound in light of evolving legal perspectives exemplified by the Janhit Abhiyan case.

Furthermore, the university must grapple with the task of analyzing whether its reservation
policies adequately address the intersectionality of factors emphasized in the Janhit Abhiyan
case. This includes a comprehensive examination of how economic status and educational
backwardness are factored into the reservation framework.

The case also delves into the delicate balance between affirmative action through reservations
and the imperative of ensuring merit-based admissions. Legal precedents, including conflicting
decisions from cases such as Indra Sawhney, contribute to the complexity of this issue.

As the university contemplates potential revisions to its reservation policies, it must carefully
consider the impact of such changes on students from marginalized communities. The
overarching goal is to ensure that any modifications align with constitutional provisions,
promoting inclusivity without disproportionately disadvantaging any specific group.

7
 ISSUES RAISED

Assessing the Constitutional Validity of the University's Reservation Policies in Light of the
Intersectionality of Factors such as Economic Status and Educational Backwardness, as
Emphasized in Recent Legal Developments.

Addressing the intricate balance between affirmative action and merit-based admissions
amidst conflicts noted in the Indra Sawhney and Janhit Abhiyan cases, while examining the
broader role of affirmative action in fostering diversity and social justice in education,
informed by legal precedents and recent case law.

Examining the potential impact of revising reservation policies on students from

marginalized communities, ensuring that the changes align with constitutional provisions and
do not disproportionately disadvantage any group.

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Assessing the Constitutional Validity of the University's Reservation Policies in Light of

the Intersectionality of Factors such as Economic Status and Educational Backwardness,
as Emphasized in Recent Legal Developments.

The university's reservation policies align with constitutional goals of equality and inclusivity,
supported by Article 15(6) and Article 16(6). They mitigate systemic inequalities and enrich
the academic environment. Upholding these policies is not only legally imperative but also
morally necessary, ensuring equal opportunity and societal progress. Therefore, the university's
reservation policies are constitutionally valid, morally imperative, and socially necessary for
fostering a more equitable and just society.

Addressing the intricate balance between affirmative action and merit-based admissions
amidst conflicts noted in the Indra Sawhney and Janhit Abhiyan cases, while examining
the broader role of affirmative action in fostering diversity and social justice in education,
informed by legal precedents and recent case law.

The respondent submits before this Hon’ble court that the Affirmative action, as enshrined in
the Constitution of India, aims to rectify historical injustices and promote diversity in
educational institutions. The introduction of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota
under the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act is a significant step towards achieving this
goal. Therefore, making it the justifiable and legal binding action of the university which also
promotes various aspects of an individual’s life and helps the people under EWS to rise to the
occasion

Examining the potential impact of revising reservation policies on students from

marginalized communities, ensuring that the changes align with constitutional provisions
and do not disproportionately disadvantage any group.

The respondent asserts that the university's reservation policies align with Article 46 of the
Constitution, which mandates the promotion of the educational and economic interests of
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other weaker sections. The revision of reservation
policies is guided by the doctrine of reasonable classification, ensuring that changes are made
without disproportionately disadvantaging any particular group while addressing specific
socio-economic conditions.

9
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. Assessing the Constitutional Validity of the University's Reservation Policies in Light

of the Intersectionality of Factors such as Economic Status and Educational
Backwardness, as Emphasized in Recent Legal Developments.
1. It is humbly submitted in this Hon’ble Court that the university’s reservation policy is
constitutionally valid and it is crucial to consider recent legal developments
emphasizing the intersectionality of factors such as economic status and educational
backwardness as explained in the issue.

2. Firstly, in the case of Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India1 the apex court highlights the
importance of considering the specific socio-economic conditions of different groups
when implementing reservation policies. This case emphasizes the need for reservations
to be tailored to address the diverse needs of marginalized communities, rather than
being applied indiscriminately. Secondly, Article 15(6) of the 103rd Amendment
empowers the state to provide reservations in educational institutions for economically
weaker sections. This provision recognizes the importance of addressing economic
deprivation alongside social backwardness in ensuring equitable access to education.
By aligning reservation policies with Article 15(6), the university is merely trying to
ensure constitutional compliance while promoting inclusivity.

3. Furthermore, Article 16(6) of the 103rd Amendment extends reservations in public

employment to economically weaker sections, which highlights a broader legislative
intent to address economic disparities in various spheres, including education. Thus,
the university's reservation policies should encompass considerations of economic
status to align with constitutional provisions. Moreover, in Indra Sawhney v. Union of
India2 it was established the principle of balancing reservation with merit-based
admissions. However, recent legal developments suggest a shift towards a more
nuanced understanding of merit, encompassing not only academic excellence but also
socio-economic diversity. Therefore, the university reconsidered its reservation policies
to reflect this evolving understanding of merit.

1
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 55 OF 2019
2
AIR 1993 SC 477

10
 4. Furthermore, Article 16(6) of the 103rd Amendment extends reservations in public
employment to economically weaker sections. This highlights a broader legislative
intent to address economic disparities in various spheres, including education. Thus,
the university's reservation policies encompass considerations of economic status to
align with constitutional provisions. The case of Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain
Gupta3 further affirmed the constitutionality of amendments providing reservations for
economically weaker sections. This legal precedent supports the argument that
reservation policies should encompass considerations of economic status to align with
constitutional provisions.

5. Moreover, the Indra Sawhney case established the principle of balancing reservation
with merit-based admissions. However, recent legal developments suggest a shift
towards a more nuanced understanding of merit, encompassing not only academic
excellence but also socio-economic diversity. Additionally, the 103rd Amendment
reflects a legislative recognition of the need to address the socio-economic dimensions
of inequality. By incorporating economic criteria into its reservation policies, the
university has contributed to the realization of constitutional ideals of social justice and
equality.

6. Furthermore, recent legal developments emphasize the importance of evidence-based

policymaking in designing reservation policies. Moreover, M. Nagaraj v. Union of
India4 emphasized the importance of evidence-based policymaking in designing
reservation policies. This case highlighted the need for reservations to be based on
quantifiable data demonstrating the socio-economic disadvantage faced by different
groups. Therefore, the university after conducting thorough research and analysis to
ensure that its reservation policies effectively address the intersecting factors of
economic status and educational backwardness.

7. In conclusion, the counsel for the respondent submits that, it is imperative to emphasize
that the university's commitment to reassessing its reservation policies in light of recent
legal developments and constitutional provisions demonstrates its dedication to

3
2018 SCC OnLine SC 1641
4
(2006) 8 SCC 212

11
 upholding the principles of equality and inclusivity. By considering the intersectionality
of factors such as economic status and educational backwardness, the university
acknowledges the complex challenges faced by marginalized communities in accessing
higher education. Through a nuanced approach that aligns with evolving legal
perspectives, the university endeavours to promote diversity and social justice within
its educational institutions while ensuring that merit remains a guiding principle.
Ultimately, by embracing evidence-based policymaking and incorporating insights
from relevant case law, the university strives to create an environment that fosters equal
opportunities for all students, regardless of their background.

II. Addressing the intricate balance between affirmative action and merit-based
admissions amidst conflicts noted in the Indra Sawhney and Janhit Abhiyan cases,
while examining the broader role of affirmative action in fostering diversity and social
justice in education, informed by legal precedents and recent case law.

8. In addressing the intricate balance between affirmative action and merit-based

admissions, it's essential to consider the conflicts highlighted in the Indra Sawhney and
Janhit Abhiyan cases. Affirmative action, as enshrined in the Constitution of India, aims
to rectify historical injustices and promote diversity in educational institutions. The
introduction of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) quota under the 103rd
Constitutional Amendment Act is a significant step towards achieving this goal.

9. It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Affirmative action, exemplified by

reservation policies, serves as a constitutional tool to address historical injustices and
ensure equitable access to education, thus promoting diversity and social justice within
educational institutions. This principle finds resonance in the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India5, where the Court
reaffirmed the importance of reservations in higher education to uplift marginalized
communities and promote inclusivity. Affirmative action, as enshrined in Article 15(4)
and Article 46 of the Indian Constitution, reflects a commitment to rectifying past
discrimination and advancing the interests of the socially and educationally backward
classes.

5
(2008) 6 SCC 1 138

12
 10. The EWS quota provides advantages to economically disadvantaged individuals who
may not have had access to quality education due to financial constraints. This
addresses a critical aspect of social justice by ensuring that economic status does not
hinder educational opportunities. The concept of considering diverse socio-economic
indicators is even recognized by the Apex Court's ruling in Chandrakanta v. Union of
India6, where the court emphasized the need for reservation policies to be flexible and
adaptable to changing socio-economic realities. Moreover, the EWS quota operates
through both vertical and horizontal approaches, enabling a comprehensive
identification of beneficiaries.

11. The vertical approach focuses on economic criteria such as income and assets to
identify individuals from economically weaker sections. By considering these factors,
the EWS quota effectively targets those who face socio-economic disadvantages,
regardless of their caste or community affiliation. This ensures that the benefits of
affirmative action reach those who need them the most, promoting fairness and equity
in admissions.

12. Additionally, the horizontal approach of the EWS quota complements the vertical
approach by broadening the scope of eligibility criteria. It takes into account various
socio-economic indicators beyond income, such as educational backwardness and lack
of access to basic amenities. This holistic approach ensures that individuals facing
multiple layers of disadvantage receive adequate support through affirmative action.

13. Furthermore, the EWS quota aligns with constitutional provisions such as Article 15(6)
and Article 16(6), which empower the state to provide reservations for economically
weaker sections. Furthermore, the apex court in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union
of India7, recognized the importance of addressing various forms of deprivation beyond
economic criteria in affirmative action policies. Therefore, by incorporating these
provisions, the EWS quota strengthens the constitutional framework of affirmative
action and reinforces the commitment to social justice in education.

6
AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 1127
7
1984 AIR 1420

13
 14. The other aspect of this affirmative action is that it’s a temporary measure intended to
address entrenched inequalities and create a more just society and fosters social
cohesion and nation-building by promoting inclusivity and equal opportunities for all
citizens. While reservations are indispensable in addressing immediate socio-economic
disparities, they should be accompanied by broader efforts to address structural
inequalities and promote long-term social inclusion. It can be seen in the precedented
case of M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore8, which upheld the constitutionality of
reservations while emphasizing the need for periodic review and revaluation of such
measures to ensure their continued relevance and effectiveness. The Apex Court, in
various judgments including Indra Sawhney v. Union of India9, has already emphasized
the importance of reservations as a means to integrate marginalized communities into
the mainstream of society. By providing pathways for socio-economic advancement
and empowerment, reservations contribute to the realization of the constitutional vision
of a just and egalitarian society.

In conclusion, the university's proactive measures in implementing the Economically Weaker

Sections (EWS) quota demonstrate a commitment to fostering diversity and social justice in
education while navigating the delicate balance between affirmative action and merit-based
admissions. By embracing both vertical and horizontal approaches to identify and support
economically disadvantaged individuals, the university ensures that affirmative action reaches
those who face significant socio-economic barriers to accessing higher education. The
university's actions are firmly rooted in constitutional principles of equality and inclusivity.
Through its dedication to providing equal opportunities for all students, regardless of their
socio-economic background, the university exemplifies a progressive approach towards
creating a more equitable educational landscape.

III. Examining the potential impact of revising reservation policies on students from
marginalized communities, ensuring that the changes align with constitutional
provisions and do not disproportionately disadvantage any group.

15. The Counsel submits in this Hon’ble Court that it is imperative to acknowledge that
any revisions to the reservation policies should not compromise the constitutional

8
1963 AIR 649
9
Supra Note 2

14
 principle of equality. Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality before
the law and prohibits discrimination. Therefore, while addressing the needs of
marginalized communities, it is crucial to ensure that any changes to the reservation
policies are in line with constitutional provisions, thereby preserving equality for all
students.

16. The revision of reservation policies should aim to mitigate the disadvantages faced by
students from marginalized communities without unduly disadvantaging any other
group. This aligns with the principle of substantive equality, which necessitates
addressing systemic barriers to education. By carefully crafting reservation policies that
consider various socio-economic factors, the university can effectively promote
inclusivity and equal opportunities for all students.

17. The overarching goal of reservation policies is to facilitate access to education for
historically marginalized groups who have been deprived of opportunities due to
societal inequalities. Any revisions to these policies should be guided by this principle,
ensuring that students from marginalized communities have equitable access to
educational resources and opportunities. This aligns with the spirit of Article 15(4) of
the Indian Constitution, which allows for special provisions for the advancement of
socially and educationally backward classes.

18. Reserving seats for students from marginalized communities not only promotes social
justice but also enriches the educational environment by fostering diversity. The
Supreme Court, has already recognized the importance of diversity in educational
institutions as essential for holistic learning and the development of a pluralistic society
through their judgments in the case of T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka10.
Therefore, any revisions to reservation policies should be mindful of maintaining and
enhancing diversity within the university's student body.

19. India as a signatory to various international conventions and treaties that emphasize the
importance of affirmative action in addressing historical injustices and promoting social
equality. By revising its reservation policies to better align with international standards,

10
(2002) 8 SCC 481

15
 the university can demonstrate its commitment to upholding human rights principles
and promoting inclusivity in education. This is consistent with the principles enshrined
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

20. Therefore, any revisions to reservation policies should involve comprehensive

consultation and engagement with stakeholders, including students from marginalized
communities, academic experts, and relevant government bodies. By soliciting input
from diverse perspectives, the university can ensure that the revised policies are
informed, inclusive, and effectively address the needs of all stakeholders as referred
under the landmark case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation11. This aligns
with the principles of participatory democracy and inclusive governance, essential for
fostering trust and legitimacy in policy-making processes.

The counsel would conclude by stating that revising reservation policies to better align with
constitutional provisions and promote inclusivity is not only a legal imperative but also a moral
obligation. By carefully considering the arguments presented and incorporating relevant legal
provisions and principles, the university can navigate this complex issue in a manner that
upholds justice, equality, and diversity within its educational framework.

11
1985 SCC (3) 545

16
 PRAYER

May it please the Hon'ble Court to consider and grant the following prayers In the lights of the
issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, it is most humbly submitted that the
court may please adjudge and declare that:

1. The respondent prays for the court to affirm the constitutional validity of the
university's existing reservation policies.

2. The respondent requests the court to recognize the importance of affirmative action in
promoting diversity and social justice within educational institutions.

3. The respondent seeks the court's acknowledgment of the university's autonomy in

formulating its admission policies.

4. The respondent prays for the court's guidance in revising reservation policies, ensuring
that any changes align with constitutional provisions and do not disproportionately
disadvantage any particular group.

5. The respondent seeks clarity on how to achieve this delicate balance in light of
conflicting perspectives.

6. The respondent urges the court to consider the broader societal implications of any
decision on reservation policies.

And the court may pass any other order, directions that deems fit in the interest of justice, equity
and good faith.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the respondent

SD/-

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

17