Section 6
Bare Act Provision
6. Reservation of seats in admissions to begin in calendar year, 1[2008].—The Central Educational Institutions shall take all necessary steps, which are required in giving effect to the provisions of sections 3, 4 and 5 of this Act, for the purposes of reservation of seats in admissions to its academic sessions commencing on and from the calendar year, 1[2008].
Footnote from Bare Act
1. Subs. by s. 6, ibid., for “2007” (w.e.f. 19-6-2012).
Explanation
Section 6 thereof provided that the Central Educational Institutions shall take all necessary steps for giving effect to the provision of Sections 3, 4 & 5 for the purpose of granting reservation of seats in admissions in the academic sessions commencing from the calendar year 2007. [3]
Section 6 establishes the timeline for the Act, mandating that Central Educational Institutions begin implementing the reservation quotas starting from the 2008 academic sessions. It requires institutions to take “all necessary steps” to balance the new reservations with the protection of existing general seats. This short timeline framed under this law created havoc, as annual permitted strength was not increased in many faculties by many appropriate authorities.
Although the Court ruled that the implementation must not result in a reduction of the absolute number of seats available to the general category as they existed prior to the Act. This solidified the “no-detriment” principle for merit-based candidates [6]; the ground reality is that increasing the seats without infrastructure killed the spirit of education in the name of quota fulfillment and satisfy the government goals of caste justice temporarily on papers. All require quality education. But such timeline is violative of right to quality education which is essentially a human right and a fundamental right.
The phrase “all necessary steps” is an administrative umbrella that lacks specific detail. It does not define what constitutes a sufficient step. Is it merely announcing the seats, or must the physical classrooms and hostels be ready? This is the real ground havoc faced by students and institutes.
All these problems in the time of administration of the statute are arising as we still using General Clauses Act 1897 to interpret our statutes. We are still lacking in our home grown rules of interpretation universally applicable across India and a legal dictionary developed on the basis of precedents and other scholarly work of Indian legal professionals. Hence even a statute drafted and enforced in 21st century is having vague provisions.
Section 7
Bare Act Provision
7. Laying of notifications before Parliament.—Every notification made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the notification or both Houses agree that the notification should not be made, the notification shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that notification.
Explanation
Section 7 mandates that every notification issued under this Act, such as exempting a course under Section 4(d) or extending the timeline for seat increases under Section 5, must be presented before both Houses of Parliament for 30 days. Parliament has the power to modify or cancel these notifications.
Although there is no specific precedent related to Section 7 of CEIRA Act, we can interpret laying of concept on the basis of other judgments. The Supreme Court established that “laying” a notification before Parliament is generally a directory requirement, not a mandatory one that invalidates the law. This means that if the government fails to lay a notification for the full 30 days, the notification itself doesn’t automatically become void, provided it was published in the Official Gazette. [13]
The “Without Prejudice” clause at the end of Section 7 is a point of contention. It states that even if Parliament later cancels or modifies a notification, everything done under it previously remains valid. This means if the government wrongly notifies a seat increase that actually reduces general category seats, and students are admitted under that flawed rule, those admissions remain valid even if Parliament strikes down the notification later. Merit-category students who were unfairly excluded have no retrospective remedy.
The Schedule
Bare Act Provision
THE SCHEDULE
[See section 4(b)]
Names of the Institutions of Excellence, etc.
1. Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai and its constituent units, namely:—
(i) Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay;
(ii) Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam;
(iii) Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technology, Indore;
(iv) Institute for Plasma Research, Gandhinagar;
(v) Variable Energy Cyclotron Centre, Kolkata;
(vi) Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Kolkata;
(vii) Institute of Physics, Bhubaneshwar;
(viii) Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai;
(ix) Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Allahabad;
(x) Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai.
2. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai.
3. North-Eastern Indira Gandhi Regional Institute of Health and Medical Science, Shillong.
4. National Brain Research Centre, Manesar, Gurgaon.
5. Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research, Bangalore.
6. Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad.
7. Space Physics Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram.
8. Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun.
Explanation
The institutions of research, institutions of excellence, institutions of national and strategic importance have been specified in the Schedule to the Act.
The Schedule to the Act provides a specific list of “Institutions of Excellence” that are entirely exempt from the reservation requirements for SC, ST, and OBC candidates. These institutions are treated as unique because their work is considered critical to national research, security, or highly specialized scientific advancement.
The criteria for being added to the Schedule are not explicitly defined in the Act itself. The government can amend the Schedule through a notification.
References
[1] “Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006”, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Dt. 9.1.2007, available at: https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/erelcontent.aspx?relid=23895®=3&lang=2, Last visited on 20.2.2026
[2] Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs Union Of India And Ors [(2007) 2 SCT 655]
[3] Tandan Kumar & Ors. vs Universityof Delhi & Anr., Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 5329/2008
[4] Kshetrimayum Maheshkumar Singh vs The Manipur University [(2022) 2 SCC 704]
[5] Pichhda Jan Kalyan Samiti,Baba. Bhimrao Ambedkar Univ.& Ors. Vs. Union Of India,Thru.The Secy.,Ministry Of H.R.D. & Ors., Allahabad High Court, MISC. BENCH No. – 9643 of 2016
[6] P. V. Indiresan vs Union Of India & Ors [2011 AIR SCW 4855]
[7] State of Tamilnadu & Anr. Vs. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute & Ors., [(1995) 4 SCC 104 : JT 1995 (3) SC 136]
[8] Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L.Yamul and Others, [(1996) 3 SCC 253]
[9] Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust vs Union Of India & Ors, [AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 2114]
[10] The State Of Punjab vs Davinder Singh, Supreme Court of India [2024 INSC 562]
[11] Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIRONLINE 2020 SC 488]
[12] Faculty Association of AIIMS v. Union of India [AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 1590]
[13] Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. And Ors vs State Of Haryana [1979 SCC(CRI) 422]
Thank you for reading this series till the end. Please share your opinion about the law related to reservations based on caste and religious identity in the comment box below. Bookmark this site for legal knowledge in simple words.