Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Sunday, 02 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2022-01-25 partly_allowed

The State of Punjab vs Anshika Goyal and others

Bench: 2 — M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna

In Brief

The State of Punjab challenged High Court orders directing it to provide specified percentages of reservation for sports persons (3% instead of 1%) and for children of riot and terrorist victims in medical colleges. The Supreme Court held that constitutional provisions on reservation are enabling, not mandatory—they permit but do not compel States to make reservations. Once a State makes a conscious policy decision on reservation percentages, courts cannot issue mandamus directing a different percentage. The Court quashed the direction for 3% sports quota as beyond judicial jurisdiction and disposed of the remaining issue as academic, as the State had already implemented the contested reservations for a later academic year.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Constitutional Law Administrative Law Writ Jurisdiction Reservation Policy Mandamus Educational Institutions Medical Education

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login