Plea For Reservation In Organisations Getting Govt Aid : Supreme Court Allows Petitioners To Approach Govt With Representation

The Supreme Court yesterday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation seeking reservation in voluntary agencies, organizations and autonomous bodies receiving grants-in-aid from the Union government.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and Joymalya Bagchi however gave the petitioners liberty to make a comprehensive representation to the government. "We have no reason to doubt that the authorities concerned shall consider the representation in accordance with government policy, if any", it said.

Briefly put, the PIL was filed for implementation of reservation in services of institutions/autonomous bodies/organizations receiving grant-in-aid from the government. The petitioners' grievance was that as far back as on 30.09.1974 and 07.10.1974, executive instructions were issued for suitable action to provide reservation in autonomous organizations/bodies receiving grant-in-aid from the government. Subsequent instructions provided that all Ministries/departments shall include a clause requiring all monetary organizations seeking grant-in-aid to follow the reservation policy in voluntary agencies, cooperative societies and such other organizations. However, the benefit was not being provided.

Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar appeared for the petitioners and submitted that instructions are being mechanically issued since last 50 years. They were lastly issued by DoPT in 2024, but have still not been complied with.

Hearing him, Justice Kant opined that it may not be correct to say that instructions were issued in 2024, since what was issued in 2024 was like a compendium of all previous instructions. The judge further noted that the issue was triggered by a Q&A in Lok Sabha, after which the petitioners, instead of filing RTIs on the same question, should have taken up any 1 organization (receiving grant-in-aid but not complying with the executive mandate) on pilot basis.

It was observed that the petitioners could have first made a comprehensive representation to the Union, giving a list of organizations/societies which were receiving grants-in-aid but not complying with the mandate and asked the government to stop said aid instead of asking for reservation.

"The petitioners have, without giving reasonable time to the authorities for consideration of that representation, have approached this Court with the instant writ petition...It seems to us that the petitioners ought to have made a comprehensive representation with some definite information with respect to 1-2 organizations, maybe on pilot basis. Based upon such information, they could have impressed upon the authorities to consider the entire issue" the bench stated.

It was further noted that the information sought by the petitioners in their RTIs was vague.

"Unfortunately, the information sought (through RTI) is apparently vague as instead of furnishing details regarding any one organization where grant-in-aid was received but no reservation was provided, the petitioners sought reservation from the authorities."

Lastly, the bench reiterated that reservation is a policy matter. "It goes without saying that prescription of reservation in any particular organization, conditionally or unconditionally, is prerogative of the policymakers. It may not be prudent for this Court to express any opinion in relation thereto."

The petition was filed Saurav Narayan, Taaran Chandna, Dr Cholaraja and Siddharth Kumar.

Appearance: Sr Adv Dr S Muralidhar, Advocate Md. Imran Ahmad, R Jude Rohit, Ninni Susan Thomas, Ariana D Ahluwalia, Yashodhara Singh, Amarjeet Gupta, Perpeet Brar, Ashu Khan, Vaishnavi Gaur, AoR Anil Kumar

Case Title: SAURAV NARAYAN AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 1018/2025