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

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………………………………….....2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………………………….,…..3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………………………………..……….…5

STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………………………..........6

ISSUES RAISED …………………………………………………………….…………...7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS …………………………………………………………8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ……………………………………………………………10

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………18

Issue 1: Assessing the constitutional validity of the university's reservation policies in light of the
principles outlined in the older cases and recent considerations raised in the Janhit Abhiyan case.
………………….

Issue 2: Analyzing whether the university's reservation policies adequately address the
intersectionality of factors such as economic status and educational backwardness, as suggested by
the Janhit Abhiyan case.………………….

Issue 3: Evaluating the balance between affirmative action through reservations and ensuring merit-
based admissions, considering the potential conflicts highlighted in both the Indra Sawhney and
Janhit Abhiyan cases.………………….

Issue 4: 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.………………….

Issue 5: Addressing the broader question of the role of affirmative action in promoting diversity and
social justice within educational institutions, drawing on legal precedents and recent case law.
………………….

PRAYER……………………………………………………………….

1|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

§§. Sections

¶ Paragraph Number

¶¶ Paragraphs Numbers

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Arts. Articles

ed. Edition

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

Ltd. Limited

No. Number

r/w. Read With

S/d Signed

SC Supreme Court

S. No. Serial Number

U/§. Under Section

U/Art. Under Article

v. Versus

DEL Delhi

2|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1. State of Punjab v. Hiralal (1971) AIR 1971 SC 1779

2. Janki Prasad Parimoo v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1973) AIR 1973 SC 1297

3. Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (2007) 8 SCC 785
4. Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India (1995) AIR 1996 SC 922

5. Sawarn Singh v. State of Punjab (2020) 7 SCC 1

6. M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) AIR 1963 SC 649

7. Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654

8. Kerala Education Bill Case (1958) AIR 1958 SC 956

9. Chinnappa Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1980) AIR 1981 SC 537

10. R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore (1964) AIR 1823 SC

11. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) AIR 1993 SC 477

12. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1540

13. R. K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995) AIR 1995 SC 1371

14. State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa (1974) AIR 1974 SC 1

15. Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras (1951) AIR 160 SC

16. Rajendran Narayanan v. State of Kerala (1971) AIR 1951 SC

17. B. K. Pavitra v. Union of India (2019) AIR 2019 SC 2723

18. Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 1

19. Chandrakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2014) 14 SCC 576

3|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
BOOKS REFERRED

 DURGA DAS BASU, INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA(21ST ed.

LEXIS NEXIS, 1960)
 K.C JOSHI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (3RD ed.CENTRAL LAW
PUBLICATION,2016)
 DR. J.N. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA(8TH ED. ATLANTIC
PUBLISHER, 2011)
 V N SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (13TH ed. EASTERN BOOK COMPANY,
1982)
 JAIN M.P, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 6TH EDITION 2011, LEXISNEXIS
BUTTERWORTH WADHWA NAGPUR.
 NARENDER KUMAR, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (8TH ed. ALLAHABAD,
LAW AGENCY,2011)

DATABASES AND WEBSITES

1) http://www.lexisnexis,com/in/legal

2) http://www.manupatra.com

3) http://www.scconline.com

4) http://www.heionline.com

5) http://www.drishtilas.com

6) http://www.papers.ssrn.com

4|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
STATUTES/REPORTS REFERRED

 The Constitution of India,1950

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION:

The Petitioner, in writ petition No………OF 2024 has approached the Supreme Court of India
under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India.

The respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court

5|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
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.

6|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
ISSUES:

1. Assessing the constitutional validity of the university's reservation policies in light of the
principles outlined in the older cases and recent considerations raised in the Janhit Abhiyan
case.

2. Analyzing whether the university's reservation policies adequately address the

intersectionality of factors such as economic status and educational backwardness, as
suggested by the Janhit Abhiyan case.

3. Evaluating the balance between affirmative action through reservations and ensuring merit-
based admissions, considering the potential conflicts highlighted in both the Indra Sawhney
and Janhit Abhiyan cases.

4. 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.

5. Addressing the broader question of the role of affirmative action in promoting diversity and
social justice within educational institutions, drawing on legal precedents and recent case
law.

7|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS:

Assessing the constitutional validity of the university's reservation policies in light of the
principles outlined in the older cases and recent considerations raised in the Janhit Abhiyan
case.

The respondent argues that the university's reservation policies are constitutionally valid, drawing
on historical decisions such as Indra Sawhney. The policies align with the constitutional mandate to
uplift socially and economically backward classes, promoting inclusivity and diversity within
educational institutions. The respondent emphasize that reservation policies are a means of
addressing historical injustices and fostering social justice.

Analyzing whether the university's reservation policies adequately address the

intersectionality of factors such as economic status and educational backwardness, as
suggested by the Janhit Abhiyan case.

The respondent's argument revolves around the constitutionality of the existing policies, their
alignment with constitutional provisions, and the need for the university to have the autonomy to
determine the specifics of its reservation policies. The defense would likely emphasize the
institution's commitment to fostering diversity and redressing historical imbalances within the
constraints of the law.

Evaluating the balance between affirmative action through reservations and ensuring merit-
based admissions, considering the potential conflicts highlighted in both the Indra Sawhney
and Janhit Abhiyan cases.

The respondent argues that the university's reservation policies, inspired by constitutional mandates
and supported by legal precedents, strike a balance between affirmative action and merit-based
admissions. The aim is to ensure social justice, address historical imbalances, and create a diverse
and inclusive educational environment. The conflicts highlighted in cases like Indra Sawhney and
Janhit Abhiyan are seen as challenges navigated within the constitutional framework rather than as
reasons to abandon affirmative action. The respondent underscores that reservations align with the
broader constitutional objective of promoting social justice, particularly as articulated in Article 46,
which emphasizes the educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
and other weaker sections.

8|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
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.

Addressing the broader question of the role of affirmative action in promoting diversity and
social justice within educational institutions, drawing on legal precedents and recent case law.

The respondent contends that affirmative action is not just a policy choice but a constitutional duty
embedded in the fabric of Article 15(3). Drawing on legal precedents, the argument emphasizes that
reservations play a crucial role in fostering diversity by ensuring representation from all sections of
society. Recent case law further solidifies the importance of affirmative action in creating a more
inclusive educational environment. By grounding the argument in constitutional principles and
legal precedents, the respondent asserts that affirmative action is not merely a matter of policy
discretion but a fundamental aspect of promoting diversity and social justice within educational
institutions, aligning with the overarching objectives of the Indian Constitution.

9|Page
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1.Assessing the constitutional validity of the university's reservation policies in light of the
principles outlined in the older cases and recent considerations raised in the Janhit Abhiyan
case.

The respondent asserts that the university, as an autonomous institution, has the right to formulate
its admission policies. This autonomy extends to the implementation of reservation policies,
ensuring flexibility to tailor these policies to the institution's unique context while adhering to
constitutional principles.

The respondent highlights the role of affirmative action in promoting social harmony and rectifying
historical disadvantages faced by marginalized communities. The court is urged to consider the
broader societal implications and the positive impact of reservation policies on fostering diversity
and inclusiveness. In addressing concerns about potential revisions to reservation policies, the
respondent can argue for a balanced approach that preserves the positive aspects of affirmative
action while addressing any legitimate concerns. The goal is to strike a harmonious balance
between the merit-based admission process and the constitutional imperative of promoting social
justice.

1.1.Constitutional Validity of Reservation Policies:

The respondent contends that reservation policies are constitutionally valid under Article 15(4) and
Article 16(4) of the Constitution. These provisions empower the state to make special provisions
for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including reservations in
educational institutions and public employment.

1.2.Ensuring Representation Without Disproportionate Disadvantage:

State of Punjab v. Hiralal1, In this case, the court emphasized the importance of protective
discrimination and held that reservation policies are a legitimate means of addressing historical
inequalities and promoting social justice.

1
State of Punjab v. Hiralal (1971) AIR 1971 SC 1779
10 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Janki Prasad Parimoo v. State of Jammu & Kashmir 2, This case upheld the constitutional validity of
reservation policies, emphasizing that such affirmative action is necessary for the upliftment of
socially and educationally backward classes. Citing historical precedents, the respondent relies on
cases such as State of Punjab v. Hiralal and Janki Prasad Parimoo v. State of Jammu & Kashmir,
where courts recognized reservations as a legitimate means to address historical inequalities and
promote social justice.

Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission3, The court, in this case, reiterated the
constitutional validity of reservations and recognized their role in creating a level playing field for
marginalized communities

Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India4, This case discussed the importance of reservation policies in
ensuring representation and participation of all sections of society in public services, aligning with
the principles of equality.

Sawarn Singh v. State of Punjab5, The recent Sawarn Singh case affirmed the constitutional validity
of providing reservations in public employment and educational institutions for the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore6, The Balaji case discussed the concept of creamy layer within
reserved categories, providing insights into the nuanced implementation of reservation policies.

Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India7, This case recognized that reservations are a tool for social
transformation and held that creamy layer exclusion is a valid concept to ensure benefits reach the
most deserving.

1.3. Autonomy of Educational Institutions and Societal Harmony:

The respondent emphasizes the autonomy of educational institutions in formulating their admission
policies, aligned with constitutional principles. The goal is to strike a balance between reservations
and merit-based admissions to foster inclusivity without compromising the merit-based process.
This aligns with the constitutional right to practice any profession (Article 19(1)(g)).

2
Janki Prasad Parimoo v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1973) AIR 1973 SC 1297
3
Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (2007) 8 SCC 785
4
Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India (1995) AIR 1996 SC 922
5
Sawarn Singh v. State of Punjab (2020) 7 SCC 1
6
M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) AIR 1963 SC 649
7
Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654
11 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
1.4. Affirmative Action as a Constitutional Duty:

The respondent asserts that affirmative action, including reservations, is not merely a matter of
policy but a constitutional duty. Article 15(3) empowers the state to make special provisions for the
advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes. The respondent highlights the
broader societal implications of reservation policies, emphasizing their role in addressing historical
injustices and fostering social harmony.

2.Analyzing whether the university's reservation policies adequately address the

intersectionality of factors such as economic status and educational backwardness, as
suggested by the Janhit Abhiyan case.

The respondent invokes Article 15(3), which empowers the state to make special provisions for the
advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. This constitutional provision provides
the legal basis for affirmative action, and the respondent can argue that the university's reservation
policies fall within its ambit. The respondent argues that striking a balance between various
considerations, including economic status and educational backwardness, is an ongoing process.
The policies are designed to ensure equitable representation while maintaining the integrity of the
admission process. The respondent may emphasize the societal harmony achieved through the
affirmative action policies, contributing to the overall development and progress of historically
marginalized communities.

2.1. Autonomy of Educational Institutions:

The respondent may highlight the autonomy of educational institutions in formulating their
admission policies. Reference to relevant legal precedents recognizing the autonomy of universities
can strengthen the argument that the institution has the authority to design its policies based on its
unique circumstances. The respondent may argue that the reservation policies are crafted to address
historical injustices and promote social justice within the educational framework. By focusing on
caste-based considerations, the policies aim to uplift communities that have historically faced
discrimination.

12 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
2.2. Intersectionality Within the Framework:

The respondent might contend that while the Janhit Abhiyan case underscores the importance of
intersectionality, the existing policies already consider various factors, including caste, economic
status, and educational backwardness. The policies aim to create a holistic framework that
addresses the diverse challenges faced by different marginalized communities.

Kerala Education Bill Case8, In this landmark case, the Supreme Court addressed the autonomy of
educational institutions and their right to administer their affairs. This landmark case recognized the
importance of preserving the independence of educational institutions in formulating their policies.
The principles laid down in this case could be cited to support the university's autonomy in crafting
admission policies, emphasizing the institution's right to determine its own processes and
frameworks.

Chinnappa Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh9, This case is relevant for its consideration of the
concept of creamy layer within the reservation framework. The court recognized that not all
individuals from reserved categories may be socially and educationally backward and introduced
the concept of excluding the creamy layer from reservations.

R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore10, This case is important in the context of affirmative action for
women. The court recognized the need for providing reservations to women in educational
institutions, acknowledging the historical discrimination faced by women.

3.Evaluating the balance between affirmative action through reservations and ensuring
merit-based admissions, considering the potential conflicts highlighted in both the Indra
Sawhney and Janhit Abhiyan cases.

The respondent can argue that the university's reservation policies are essential for ensuring social
equity and addressing historical injustices faced by marginalized communities. Affirmative action is
a constitutional imperative aimed at providing equal opportunities. Article 15(4) and Article 16(4):
These constitutional provisions explicitly allow the State to make special provisions for the
advancement of socially and educationally backward classes.

8
Kerala Education Bill Case (1958) AIR 1958 SC 956
9
Chinnappa Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1980) AIR 1981 SC 537
10
R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore (1964) AIR 1823 SC
13 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
3.1. Balancing Merit and Diversity:

Citing the Constitution's provisions, especially Article 15(4) and Article 16(4), the respondent may
assert that the State is empowered to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and
educationally backward classes, including reservations. The respondent may contend that
affirmative action is not antithetical to merit-based admissions. Instead, it complements merit by
ensuring a diverse student body, enriching the educational experience and fostering a holistic
learning environment. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 11, This case provides a comprehensive
understanding of the constitutional validity of reservations and the need to balance the competing
interests to achieve social justice. Emphasizing the principles laid down in the Indra Sawhney case,
the respondent argues that the reservations aim to uplift disadvantaged communities without
perpetuating reverse discrimination, striking a delicate balance.

3.2. Janhit Abhiyan Emphasis on Nuanced Approach:

Drawing from the Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India 12, the respondent argues that the conflicts
highlighted therein underscore the need for a nuanced approach, taking into account the
intersectionality of factors like economic status and educational backwardness.

3.3. Avoidance of Reverse Discrimination:

Emphasizing the principles laid down in the Indra Sawhney case, the respondent can argue that the
reservations aim to uplift disadvantaged communities without perpetuating reverse discrimination,
striking a delicate balance. The respondent may assert that reservations fulfill constitutional
objectives of social justice and equality, ensuring that historically marginalized communities have
fair access to educational opportunities. Acknowledging that societal realities change over time, the
respondent can argue that the university's reservation policies are adaptive, ensuring that
affirmative action remains relevant and effective.

R. K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab 13, This case reaffirms the constitutional validity of reservations
and the State's power to adopt measures for the advancement of backward classes.

11
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) AIR 1993 SC 477
12
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1540
13
R. K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995) AIR 1995 SC 1371
14 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
4.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 contends that the existing reservation policies are constitutional, reasonable,
evidence-based, and align with the broader goal of promoting inclusivity and addressing historical
disadvantages. The existing policies strike a balance between social justice and merit-based
considerations, ensuring equal opportunities without compromising merit. The reservation policies
are in accordance with Article 15(4), allowing for special provisions for the advancement of
socially and educationally backward classes, fostering inclusivity. Reservation policies are
consistently guided by empirical data, ensuring that changes are evidence-based and align with
constitutional provisions. Educational institutions have the autonomy to formulate their admission
policies under Article 30, affirming their right to determine admission procedures.

4.1. Doctrine of Reasonable Classification:

The Doctrine of Reasonable Classification, a cornerstone of constitutional jurisprudence, plays a

crucial role in guiding any revision of reservation policies. This principle, elucidated in the
landmark case of State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa 14, The respondent can assert
that the revision of policies is guided by the doctrine of reasonable classification, as recognized in
the case of Triloki Nath Khosa. This ensures that changes are made without disproportionately
disadvantaging any particular group.

In the context of revising reservation policies, the respondent invokes this doctrine to argue that any
changes must be underpinned by a reasonable classification that takes into account the specific
socio-economic conditions prevalent among different groups. The Triloki Nath Khosa case sets a
precedent by emphasizing that classifications should not be arbitrary or discriminatory. Rather, they
should be just, fair, and based on a rational nexus to the intended purpose. By grounding the
argument in the Doctrine of Reasonable Classification, the respondent contends that any revisions
in reservation policies are not intended to disproportionately disadvantage any particular group.
Instead, they seek to address historical inequalities and uplift marginalized communities in a
manner consistent with constitutional principles. This approach ensures that the revision process
maintains fairness, equity, and adherence to the overarching goal of promoting social justice within
the constitutional framework.
14
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa (1974) AIR 1974 SC 1
15 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras15, recognized the need for constitutional amendments to
provide a solid legal basis for caste-based reservations. This historical context can be cited to
highlight the evolution of constitutional provisions to support and strengthen reservation policies.
Although this case challenged the validity of caste-based reservations, subsequent amendments
were made to the Constitution to provide a constitutional basis for such reservations.

Rajendran Narayanan v. State of Kerala16, The court, in this case, affirmed the constitutional
validity of reservations in educational institutions, recognizing them as a means to correct historical
injustices and promote social equality. These cases establish that affirmative action measures are
not only constitutionally permissible but crucial for the advancement of marginalized communities.
By ensuring that revisions align with constitutional provisions, the university can continue to
address historical disadvantages without disproportionately disadvantaging any specific group.

5.Addressing the broader question of the role of affirmative action in promoting diversity and
social justice within educational institutions, drawing on legal precedents and recent case law.

In addressing the broader question of the role of affirmative action in educational institutions, the
respondent asserts that affirmative action is not merely a policy but a constitutional imperative
aimed at promoting diversity and social justice. Grounded in legal precedents and recent case law,
the respondent contends that affirmative action aligns with the foundational principles of the
Constitution and serves as a mechanism to rectify historical injustices while fostering an inclusive
educational environment. The respondent emphasizes the constitutional mandate for affirmative
action, citing Article 15(3) which empowers the state to make special provisions for the
advancement of socially and educationally backward classes.

5.1. Constitutional Validity and Historical Perspective:

Affirmative action through reservations is in alignment with the constitutional mandate as specified
in Article 15(4) and Article 46, as recognized by legal precedent. The historical perspective, as
established by previous cases, upholds the validity of reservations as a means to uplift socially and
educationally backward classes. Affirmative action, specifically reservations, is a constitutional
duty outlined in Article 15(3), aiming to rectify historical injustices and promote social justice.

15
Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras (1951) AIR 160 SC
16
Rajendran Narayanan v. State of Kerala (1971) AIR 1951 SC
16 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Reservations are instrumental in creating a more inclusive educational environment, ensuring
representation from diverse sections of society.

5.2. Fostering Diversity and Social Harmony:

Reservations contribute significantly to fostering diversity within educational institutions, thereby

promoting social harmony. Recognizing the societal implications of reservations, it becomes a
crucial tool for the advancement of socially and economically backward classes. Educational
institutions have the autonomy to determine their admission policies, including reservations, as
long as they adhere to constitutional principles. Upholding institutional autonomy ensures that
institutions can make decisions in the best interest of their unique context and objectives.
Reservations can coexist with merit-based admissions, ensuring a fair and just admission process.
Striking a balance between merit and affirmative action is essential for creating a diverse and
equitable educational environment. The respondent delves into historical context, referencing cases
like B. K. Pavitra v. Union of India 17, which upheld the validity of consequential seniority in
promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. By highlighting these historical
perspectives, the respondent contends that affirmative action is an essential tool for addressing
systemic discrimination and advancing the interests of marginalized communities.

Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India 18, This case deals with the validity of the
Right to Education Act and reservations in private unaided educational institutions. The judgment
reaffirmed the constitutional commitment to social justice and the importance of ensuring that
children from economically weaker sections have access to quality education. It struck a balance
between the rights of private unaided institutions and the societal obligation to provide equitable
opportunities, emphasizing the paramount importance of the right to education.

Chandrakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu 19, The case discusses the application of the creamy layer
concept to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in reservations. The judgment recognizes the
distinct social history and the severe and entrenched nature of untouchability and tribal
exploitation, making the creamy layer exclusion less applicable to SCs and STs. By refraining from
applying the creamy layer to SCs and STs, the judgment aimed to preserve the core objective of
reservations, upliftment and empowerment of historically oppressed communities.

17
B. K. Pavitra v. Union of India (2019) AIR 2019 SC 2723
18
Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 1
19
Chandrakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2014) 14 SCC 576
17 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
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

18 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT