The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected a petition seeking 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in admissions to the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Patiala.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry held that the Constitution does not mandate reservation, but merely enables the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes.

The Court clarified that while the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 provides for 27% OBC reservation, RGNUL does not fall within the definition of a “Central Educational Institution” under that Act. It noted that the university is governed by the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law Punjab Act, 2006, and the regulations framed under it.

“Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that respondent No.2 University does not fall within any of the afore-quoted five clauses, which define ‘Central Educational Institutions’,” the Bench stated. Accordingly, the Central Act could not be invoked to compel RGNUL to adopt the 27% OBC reservation model.

The Bench also pointed out that RGNUL’s Executive Council had already reserved two seats for OBCs in its five-year integrated BA LLB (Hons.) programme. It upheld this provision, noting that there was no legal infirmity in clause 2(i) of Part-IV, Section-B of the university's regulations.

Rejecting the petitioner’s claim of unconstitutionality, the Court stated:

“The Constitution provides for reservation through an enabling provision and not a mandatory one. More so, respondent No.2 University, not being a Central Educational Institution under the 2006 Act, cannot be compelled to provide a specific quantum of reservation for OBCs.”

The petitioner, a Jat Sikh woman who belongs to a backward class in Punjab, had argued that RGNUL’s failure to reserve 27% of seats for OBCs—unlike other National Law Universities—was discriminatory and unconstitutional.

However, the Court noted that no statutory provision had been pointed out to mandate such a reservation percentage at RGNUL.

Case Details:

• Petitioner’s Counsel: Advocate Satnam Singh Abiana

• Union of India Counsel: Senior Panel Counsel Anil Chawla

• RGNUL Counsels: Advocates Puneet Gupta, Anil Rana, Ravindra Singh

• UGC Counsels: Advocates Lovenish Kaur and Heman Aggarwal