# JAGDISH SARAN & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS - **Citation:** [1980] 2 S.C.R. 831 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1980-01-28 - **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 214 of 1979 - **Bench:** V. R. KRISHNA l¥ER, R. S. Patiiak, 0. Ch!Nnappa Reddy - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jagdish-saran-ors-v-union-of-india-ors-7935 - **Pages:** 32 ## Headnote B Co11stitution of India 1950, Articles 15 and 16-Admission to post-graduate course in medicine-Rule of Delhi University-Reservation of 70 per cent of seats at post graduate level for its own university graduates-Validity of. Practice and Procedure-Litigatio11 on socio-legal issue-Brief to be well researched and factually detailed. C The University of Delhi has many post-gradua.te and diploma courses in the faculty of n1edicine but all of them put together provide 250 seats. 'fhe .three medioal colleges in Delhi turn out annually 400 medical graduates who get 'house' jobs in the local hospitals and qualify themselves for post-graduate courses. As the graduates from the Delhi University could not be accommodated fully or even in part for the post-graduate courses in medicine and as D these graduates were not considered for ·admission into other universities on account of various regional hurdles such as prescription of domicile, graduation in that very university, registration with the State Medicad Council, servic'e in the State Medical service etc., the Delhi University had earmarked some seats at the poet-graduate level in medicine for the m'edical graduates of Delhi University. Until April 1978, the nlle for selection of candidates for admission into the post-graduate cla.sses in nledicine provided that s'election for 52% of the total number of seats was to be made on the basis of combined merit of Delhi University and other university medical graduates, and 48 per cent from the Delhi University graduates only, The rule was amended, reserving 70% of the seats at the post-graduate l'evel to Delhi gradua.tes and 30% being open to all, including graduates of Delhi. E The petitioner who was a medical graduate from the Madras University applied for the post-graduate degree in Dermatology in th'e University of Delhi. He passed the common entrance test for admission, but his admission was turned down because of the rule of the University reserving 70% of the seats· at th1J post-graduate level to Delhi University graduates. The petitioner in his writ petition under Article 32 challenged th'e rule as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and sought the court's writ to direct the University to admit him to the M.D. Course in Dermatology. It was contended that the University was sustained by Central Government finances, collected from the whole country and the benefits must likewise belong to all qualified students from ever}"vhere. The University justified the reservation on the ground of exclusivism practised by every other University by forbidding Delhi University graduates from getting admission in th'eir colleges and also on accciunt of the reasonableness of institutional continuity in educational pursuits f0r students who enter a. un_iversity for higher studies. F G u 832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R. A Dismissing the writ petition. HELD : (per Krishna Iyer & Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.) 1. Reservation of 70% is too high at the post-graduate level. But the rule is not invalidated because the facts are impcrlect, the course has already started and the court must act only on sure ground, especially when matters of policy, B socio-educational, investigation and expert evaluation of variables are involved. When fuller facts are placed, the court will go into this question more con· fidently. [858 D-EJ · -0 2. If 70% reservation is on the high side and the petitioner is hop'efully near __...... 'admission' going by marks it is but just that be is given a chance to do his post-graduate course. His coming to Delhi itself was a compulsion beyond his C control. [858 FJ D E F 3. Petitioner directed to lie admitted to the degree course this year, If the rulesi>'of attendance etc., do not stand in the way and the Medical Council makes an exception by agreeing to addition of one scat as a special cas'e for this yeru. [858 G] 4. (i) The University forthwith-not later than two months from today-to appoint a time-bound committee ## Text _Characters 0–39,785 of 90,729. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39785 for what follows._ • .. • 831 JAGDISH SARAN & ORS. A v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS . January 28, 1980 [V. R. KRISHNA l¥ER, R. S. PATIIAK AND 0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] B Co11stitution of India 1950, Articles 15 and 16-Admission to post-graduate course in medicine-Rule of Delhi University-Reservation of 70 per cent of seats at post graduate level for its own university graduates-Validity of. Practice and Procedure-Litigatio11 on socio-legal issue-Brief to be well researched and factually detailed. C The University of Delhi has many post-gradua.te and diploma courses in the faculty of n1edicine but all of them put together provide 250 seats. 'fhe .three medioal colleges in Delhi turn out annually 400 medical graduates who get 'house' jobs in the local hospitals and qualify themselves for post-graduate courses. As the graduates from the Delhi University could not be accommodated fully or even in part for the post-graduate courses in medicine and as D these graduates were not considered for ·admission into other universities on account of various regional hurdles such as prescription of domicile, graduation in that very university, registration with the State Medicad Council, servic'e in the State Medical service etc., the Delhi University had earmarked some seats at the poet-graduate level in medicine for the m'edical graduates of Delhi University. Until April 1978, the nlle for selection of candidates for admission into the post-graduate cla.sses in nledicine provided that s'election for 52% of the total number of seats was to be made on the basis of combined merit of Delhi University and other university medical graduates, and 48 per cent from the Delhi University graduates only, The rule was amended, reserving 70% of the seats at the post-graduate l'evel to Delhi gradua.tes and 30% being open to all, including graduates of Delhi. E The petitioner who was a medical graduate from the Madras University applied for the post-graduate degree in Dermatology in th'e University of Delhi. He passed the common entrance test for admission, but his admission was turned down because of the rule of the University reserving 70% of the seats· at th1J post-graduate level to Delhi University graduates. The petitioner in his writ petition under Article 32 challenged th'e rule as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and sought the court's writ to direct the University to admit him to the M.D. Course in Dermatology. It was contended that the University was sustained by Central Government finances, collected from the whole country and the benefits must likewise belong to all qualified students from ever}"vhere. The University justified the reservation on the ground of exclusivism practised by every other University by forbidding Delhi University graduates from getting admission in th'eir colleges and also on accciunt of the reasonableness of institutional continuity in educational pursuits f0r students who enter a. un_iversity for higher studies. F G u 832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R. A Dismissing the writ petition. HELD : (per Krishna Iyer & Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.) 1. Reservation of 70% is too high at the post-graduate level. But the rule is not invalidated because the facts are impcrlect, the course has already started and the court must act only on sure ground, especially when matters of policy, B socio-educational, investigation and expert evaluation of variables are involved. When fuller facts are placed, the court will go into this question more con· fidently. [858 D-EJ · -0 2. If 70% reservation is on the high side and the petitioner is hop'efully near __...... 'admission' going by marks it is but just that be is given a chance to do his post-graduate course. His coming to Delhi itself was a compulsion beyond his C control. [858 FJ D E F 3. Petitioner directed to lie admitted to the degree course this year, If the rulesi>'of attendance etc., do not stand in the way and the Medical Council makes an exception by agreeing to addition of one scat as a special cas'e for this yeru. [858 G] 4. (i) The University forthwith-not later than two months from today-to appoint a time-bound committee to investigate in depth the justification for and the qua.ntum of res'ervation at the post-graduate level from the angle of equality of opportunity for every Indian. That comn1ittee will study facts and figures and the reservation realities of other universities and make recommendations on the question of university-based reservations and allied aspects as well as modus operandi for implementation. The Committee will benefit if it has a. constitutional expert and a representative of the Indian Medical Council on it. Its report shall be consid'ered by the University as soon as may be, so that, if possible, the "..dmissions for the next year may be governed by the revised decisions of the concerned organs informed by the report. [858 H-859 C] (ii) The Union of India has a; special responsibility to ensure that in higher education provincialism does not erode the integrity of India. Anyone who lives in India can n'ever be considered an 'outsider' in Delhi. Blind and bigoted local patriotism in xenophobic exclusivism is destructive of freedom and only if compelling considerations of gross injustice, desperate back\vardness and glaring inequality desiderate such a course can protective discrimination gain entrance into the pcrtals of college campuses. (859 D, 860 A, BJ 5. The philosophy and pragmatism of universal excellence through universal G equal opportunity is part of our culture and constitutional creed. [843 A] 6. The Indian Constitution is wedded to equal protection and non-discrimination. Arts. 14, 15 and 16 &re inviolable· and Art. 29(2) strikes a similar note though it does not refer to regional restrictions or reservations.. Art. 15 save.OJ the State's pow'er to make special provisions for women and children or for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. [842 BJ B 7. University-wise preferential treatment may still be consistent with the rule of equality of opportunity where it is calculated to correct and imbalance or handicap and permit equality in the larger sense. [849 FJ .. > • • JAGDISH v. UNION (Krishna Iyer, J.) 833 8. What is fundamental is equality, not classification. What is basic is equal opportunity, for each according to his ability, not artificial, compartmentalisation and institutional apartheidisation, using the mask of handicaps. A clanish ex .. clusivism based upon a particular university cannot be contemplated as consistent with Article 14. [852 Al 9. A blanket ban which ls the indirect result of a wholesale reservation is A constitutional heresy. There must be substantial soci2'1 justice as raison d'etre B for a high percentage of alumni reservation. [853 H] ...,_ 10. If equality of opportunity for every person in the country is th'e consti .. ~ tutional guarante'e, a candidate who gets more marks than another is entitled to •-"-- -preference for admission. Merit must be the test when choosing the best, according to this rule of equal chance for equal marks. This proposition has greater importance \Vhen we reach the higher levels of education like postgraduate courses. The role of high grade skill or special talent m·ay be less at the lesser levels of education jobs and disciplines of social incons'equence, but more at the higher levels of sophisticated skills and strategic employment. To devalue merit at the summit is to tem_i:orise with the country's development in the vital areas of professional expertise. [854 E-G] 11. The class which enjoys reservation must be educationally handicapped. c The reservation must be geared to getting oYcr the handicap. The rationale D of reservation must be in the case of medkal students, removzJ of regional or class inadequacy or like disadvantage. The quantum of reservation should not be 'excessive or societally injurious, measured by the over-all competency of the end-product, viz. degree-holders. A host of variables influence the quantification of the reservation. [855 B-C] 12. The higher the level of the sp'eci:::Jity the lesser the role of reservation. M.B.B.S. is a basic medical degree and insistance on the highest talent may be relaxed by promotion of backward groups, institution-wise chosen, without injury to public w'elfare. It produces equal opportunity on a broader basis and gives hope to neglected geographical or human areas of getting a chance to rise. ~Ioreover, the better chances of candidates from institutions in neglected regions getting down for practice in these very regions also warrants institutional preference because that policy helps the supply of medical services to these backward areas. [855 D, } 1 13. It is difficult to denounce or renounce the merit criterion where the selec· tion is for post-graduate or post-doctoral courses in specialised subjects. There is no substitute for sheer flair, for creative talent, for fine-tuned performance at the difficult heights of some disciplines where the best alone is likely to blossom· E F as the best. [856 F-G] G 14. Neither Delhi nor the Delhi University medio:.::al colleges can be designated as categories \Vhich \varrant reservation. Reservation for Delhi graduates is not that invidlous, because the students are from families drawn from all over India~ Not ~sons of the soil• but sons 2dld daughters of persons who ar'e pulled into the capital city for reasons beyond their control. This reservation, is, the)"efore, qualitatively different. [857 D-F] H 15. Institution-\.vis'e reservation is constitutionally circumscribed and may become ultra vires if recklessly resorted to. But even such rules, until revised A • 834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R. by competent authority or stn1ck down judidally, will rule the roost. Until the signpost of 'no admission for outsiders' is removed from other uni"Versities and some fair percentage of seats in other universities is left for open competition, the Delhi students cannot be made m,artyrs of the Constitution. R'eservation must be administered in moderatidn, if it is to be constitutional. [858 B-C] 16. Litigation, on a socio-legal issue of critical constitutional moment, should • B not end with general assertions, affida.vits of formal denials and minimal materials, but needs feeding the court with nutritive facts which build the flesh and blood of the administrative or legislative action under challenge and 111 other surrounding and comparative data v.'hich legitim university. An institutional quo~a is not invariably a constitutional anathema and, in the present case, the Delhi University offers an explanation for this recourse to higher institutiona,1 reservation. Many universities now adopt the exclusionary or segregative device of de facto monopoly of seats for higher medical courses to its own alumni, Indians from other Indian Universities being treated as aliens. This xenophobic trend has forced the Delhi University to reciprocate with high reservation. If reservation of seats, as a strategy of admission to techniclli colleges, is void there may be a wider impact on a number of the institutions and individuals than on the parties here. The law laid down by this Court binds other institutions because Art. 141 is imperative. Sri Shanti Bhushan, appearing for the University, assertively suggested to the contrary remembering only the rule of res judicata, but later realised the obvious error and recanted. He agreed that if , , ) • • JAGD!SH v. UNION (Krishna Iyer, J.) 837 this Court invalidated reservation, as such, many universities would be upset in their admission processes, although they were not party-a weakness of the adversary system which needs remedying. So, we invited the learned Attorney General also to help the Court, which he did and we record our gratitude. Unfortunately, the petitioner has not been able to present, the social facts, the educational milieu, the statistical materials and other vital data bearing on the constitntional vice of the rule of excessive reservation, and the respondent University, despite our repeated suggestions to its counsel, has not enriched its brief with sufficient facts which enlighten the court, although some additional information has been brought in. On the other hand, counsel's submissions were scary, if we may say so with respect, to the effect that when students went on a fast unto death, Government had to intervene and save the situation and provide larger reservation. As the Attorney General agreed, hunger strikes cannot amend the Constitution, and Government, if impressed with the grievance which has led to the protest fast, mnst set in motion changes in the basic Jaw, as was done in the first constitntional amendment and later for States Reorganisation. When this flaw was pointed out to the respondent, some more materials were placed before the court in justification of the increase in the reservation quota from a constitutional angle, and we will deal with them. In the adversary system, advocacy in the superior courts, which, their decisions, declare the Jaw for all must broaden beyond the particular lis into a conspectus of sociological facts, economic fuctors and educational conditions so that other persons aggrieved who will potentially be bound by the decision, do not suffer by not being co-nominee parties. Surely, on the available material, counsel have done their best. This preliminary narration leads upto the constitutional problem that A B c D E oonfronts the court in this petition under Art. 32 and stresses how it F deserves, for its solution, serious and sensitive judicial and administrative statesmanship enlivened by legal fundamentals, since the crucial issne springs from the pervasive and protective tendency for institutional reservation of post-graduate seats, which, if left uncanalised and indulged in excess, may well imperil the integrated status of higher national education and make a mockery of equal opportunity. Basically, great G ·constitutional issues cannot be divorced, even while being viewed from a legal perspective, from their national overtones oand individual impact, since passionate provincialisation and addiction to institutional xenophobia, even in higher education, have a suicidal fascination beyond myopic political perception. And, on the contrary, elitist exa~geration of 'national' considerations and personal merit, where local protection H is essential for the bumbler people's interests, bas a depressing reper- <:ussion if pushed beyond a point-an aspect which expert policy-makers A B c D E F G H 838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R. sometimes overlook in unwitting promotion of their gronp interest. The problem is complex and thorny, charged with practical difficnlties and fraught with explosive possibilies. A short cut, in such situations may well prove a wrong cut and so we are circumspect in our assessment and tentative in our conclusions, especially because counsel, in our adversary system, often do not travel beyond the narrow needs of the case and, despite our prodding, we have not received the social-statistic:oal wealth of material to help us take a comorehensive overview of the issue. Law, constitutional law, is not an omnipotent abstraction or distant idealisation but a principled, yet pragmatic, value-laden and result-oriented, set of propositions applicable to and conditioned by a concrete stage of social development of the nation and aspirational imperatives of the people. India To-day-that is the inarticulate major premise of our constitutional law and life. We highlight these basics because Shri Shanti Bhushan, for the University, pleaded for a practical appreciation of the lot of the Delhi graduates excluded from everywhere else while Shri Balakrishnan for the petitioner, pressed for a national approach to high-grade talent vis-a·vis courses in specialities. A synthesis of both is, where the truth lies. The key to this case, if we may anticipate ourselves, .is in harmoniously blending developmental necessities of backward regions via institutional reservations-and national considerations of everybody's equal opportunity for higher education being ensured regardless of geographical, institutional or other inhibitions. We must never forget two values synthesised in our constitutional culture, as set out in the Preamble-unity and integrity of the nation and equality of, opportunity of weaker sections. Without the latter becoming a sure reality the former may be mere rhetoric ! An epitome of the social background leading upto the controversy will give a hang of the case and elaboration may await a later stage. Post Independence India has many universities with facilities for higher learning. Most of them give institutional preferences in the allocation of seats for technical courses and this tendency sometimes reaches the morbid point of total cornering of seats at post-graduate level, especially in the coveted and competitive branches like medicine. The Delhi University which has M.B.B.S. and post-graduate medical courses, exercises academic jurisdiction over the affiliated colleges in the capital of the conntry, enjoys great prestige for its schools of learning and excellence in teaching and is founded by the Central Government. It has at once a territorial limitation and national complexion and it caters to a population, by and large, drawn from all over the country because of the vast official, political, parliamentary judicial, educational, commercial and other gravitational pulls which the capital of the • • ' > ' • F • JAGDISH v. UNION (Krishna Iyer, I.) 83 ~) country inevitably exerts. This population is fluid because of movements, transfers and a host of other factors. The indigenous denizens. of Delhi are perhaps over-run by these super-imposed layers and the student community of the Delhi Universiy is not made up so much by the 'sons of the soil' as in universities in other places but is accounted for by the inflow of groups drawn from all over the country. In a limited sense, it is a microcosm if India is a macrocosm. This national demographic composition is relevant to the eX'llminat'on of the 'reservation' problem. The capital city is not just a part of India. It is miniaturised India, a fact often forgotten by the administration in the field of culture and education, especially vis-a-vis regional minorities. It is magapolitan and people from all parts flock to this outsized city. But we cannot exaggerate this factor, for the presence of the farther regions like the South and the North East, population-wise, is minimal and precarious. Shri Balakrishnan insisted that the University was sustained by Central Government finances, collected from the whole country, and the benefits must likewise belong to all qualified students from everywhere. These are valuable aspects to shape policy but the court must test constitutionality and no more. To that extent alone we will weigh these factors in moulding our verdict. We will now identify the issues emerging from the matrix cf facts. Since Shri Shanti Bhushan laid stress on these factors, viz. the •Qf)lagraha crisis created by the students, the obdurate, may be, even obscurantist, exclusiveness of other Universities forbidding Delhi graduates from getting admission in their colleges and the reasonabler.cs:; of institutional continuity in educat:onal pursuits for students who enter a university for higher studies, we must dilate on the foundational facts more fully. Since Sri Balakrishnau emphasised the pathetic plight of meritorious students if 'apartheid' policies were practi~ed by universitie8, contrary to the cultural unity and constitutional mandates of our nation, we must weave into the legal fabric of 'admission' regulations strands of national integration and equal opportun;ty for higher education. These rival contentions justify, albeit a little repetitively, the recapitulation of recent events, parochial realitic~ and institutional behaviour, bearing on admissions to colleges in the Delhi University, with some comparative glance at others in the country. We are concerned with three medical colleges, two being affiliated to, and one being maintained, by the Delhi University. Together they turn out annually around 400 medical graduates. These graduales get house job~ in the local hospitals and qualify themselves for 16-91 SCI/80 A ~" .,. " B c D E F G " A B c D E ' G 8 840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 2 S.C.R. post-graduate courses. The University has mauy post-graduate degrees and diploma courses but all of them put together come to only 250 seats. Naturally, the graduates from the Delhi University cannot be accommodated fully or even in part for the post-graduate degree courses. If, out of the available seats for the post-graduate courses, a large slice is thrown up for open competition and students from all over the country swarm to take the entrance examination, the Delhi graduates' prospects become bleaker. The further . cas.e of the University is that there is a harsh handicap for these graduates in that they are not considered for admission in other universities on account of various regional hmdles such as prescription of domicile, graduation in that very university, registration with the State Medical Council, service in the State Medical Service and the like. The necessary consequence of these road-blocks in the way of getting into post-graduate courses is dissatisfaction frustration, fury and pressure for exclusive earmarking of all seats at the post-graduate level in the Delhi University for the Delhi graduates. Reservation elsewhere breeds reservation here. Good and evil become contagious and indivisible and eventually over powering. The chain reaction had led to the principle of reservation being accepted by the Delhi University, first in moderate measure and next immoderately, maybe, because the pressure of militant Delhi graduates forced the University's hands or because Government, which virtually forced this solution of 70% plus reservation, acted on the easy guidelines : Nothing succeeds like excess. Reservation begins as a mild remedy but becomes, unless leashed, a Frankensteins monster. The rule for selection of candidates until April 1978 was as follows: (a) For the first 52 % seats of the total number of seats available, the selection was to be made on the basis of combined merit of Delhi University and other Universities medical graduates. (b) The selection of the remaining 48 % seats was to be made from the Delhi University graduates only. By this method, approximately half the number of seats were reserved for the Delhi graduates. But having regard to the figures of seats and turn-out of graduates earlier mentioned, this did not meet the requirements of the aspirants for post-graduate degrees from Delhi. If must be remembered that Delhi is the seat of the elite, of high officials, of prosperous professionals, of rich businessmen, of important politicians and echelons of consequence and other men of money-power. • JAGDISII v. UNION (Krishna Iyer,];) 841 Tl.Jc.ir sons and daughters, already fed on superior facilities and coached in special schools beyond the reach of most other students in the rest of the country, have an appetite and opportunity for excellence in education ahead of others and wish to lap up all the post-graduate seats, if possible. The cream must belong to the cream, generation to generation, may be a cynical social scientists 'comment,' Inevitably, a larger number of Delhi medical graduates, relatively speak;ng, must be ambitiously wanting to continue their studies in post-graduate medical courses which are prized for their career potential. It is significant that these courses are not easily available elsewhere and the standards and prestige of these degrees in the Delhi University are high. Taking a post-graduate medical degree thns opens up further vistas for stud:es abroad or employment at home. When we remember these factors and the reduced chance for bright Delhi graduates to gain admission into the Delhi post-graduate courses in the face of All-India competition, we can mildly appreciate the mood and demand of the student community for enlargement of their quota. But all grievances are not constitutional. Also, by remedy the peak. Environmental inhibitions mostly 'freeze the geni_al current of the soul' of many a humble human whose failure is 'inflicted', not innate. Be it from the secular perspective of human equality or the spiritual insight of divinity in everyone, the inherent superiority cult with a herrenvolk tint, is contrary to our axiom of equality. That is why 'equal protection of the laws' for full growth is guaranteed, apart from 'equality before the law'. Even so, in our imperfect society, some objective standards like common admission tests are pr~ cribed to measure merit, without subjective manipulation or university-wise invidiousness. In one sense, it is a false dilemma te> thlnk that there is rivalry between equality and excellence, although superficially they are competing values. In the long run, when every member of the society has equal opportunity, genetically and environmentally, to develop his potential, each will be able, in his own way, • • ' • JAGDISH v .. UNION (Krishna Iyer, J.) 843 to manifest his faculty fully. The philosophy and pragmatism of uniA · versa! excellence through universal equal opportunity is part of our culture and constitutional creed . This norm of non-discrimination, however, admits of just exceptions geared to equality and does not forbid those basic measures needed to abolish the gaping realities of current inequality afflicting socially and educationally backward classes' and 'the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes'. Such measures are rightly being . taken by the State and are perfectly constitutional as the State of Kera/a v. N. M. Thomas(') has explained. Equality and steps towards equalisation are not idle incantation but actuality, not mere ideal but real, life. But can a university, acting within the constitutional parameters, create a new kind of discrimination viz., reservation for students of a particular university? The literal terms of Art. 14 do not tolerate it, the text of Art. 15 does not sanction it. Can we carve out a fresh ground of preference? Delhi University students, as such, are not an educationally backward class and, indeed, institution-wise segregation or reservation has no place in the scheme of Art. 15, although social and educational destitution may be endemic in some parts of the country where a college or university may. be started to remedy this glaring imbalance and reservation for those alumi for higher studies may be permissible. We will explain this further but, speaking generally, unless there is vital nexus with equal opportunity, broad validation of university-based reservation cannot be built on the vagu, ground that all other universities are practising it-a fact not fully proved before us either. Universality of illega- -lity, even if the artists of discrimination are universities, cannot convert such praxis into constitutionality. Nor, indeed, can the painful circumstance that a batch of medical graduates demonstratively fasted in front of the Health Minister's house, ipsp facto, legalise reservation of seats in their favour. Shri Shanti Bhushan vividly described his role as Law Minister in meeting the student satyagrahis who were honestly hungry for post-graduate seats and the crisis which stampeded government to intervene and make the University revise its reservation upward to save the lives of the 'fasters'. We have sympathy for students, especially for those who sacrifice their comforts to claim an opportunity to take post-graduate medical degrees. We even feel that the student commumty often resorts to direct action of the satyagraha model when the pachydermic disposition of authorities drives them to such drastic heroics. But what if non-Delhi students (I) [1976] 1S.C.R.906. B c D E F G H A B c D E F G 844 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS [!980J 2 S.C.R. start a rival starvation exercise? That will lead to testing the rule of law on the immolative or masochist capabiJ:ties of affected groups and not on the Articles of the Constitutional or provisions of the legislation. Protest fasting, a versatile weapon in our cultural armoury, is meant to sensitize or conscientize the soul of the Adm:nistration when it is too paper-logged or callous to look at human problems from the angle of human justice. Beyond that, this great Gandhian technique cannot be blunted by promiscuous use, so long as democratic mechanisms are alive and not impervious to legitimate gr:evances and can be sparked into action not merely by sensational, though sincere, tactics like fasting unto death. While recognisi11g.