'Reservation Based On Caste Alone': Madras High Court Quashes 10.5% Internal Reservation To Vanniyar Community Under Most Backward Class Category

The Madras High Court quashed the Tamil Nadu law providing internal reservation of 10.5 % to the Vanniyar Community under the category Most Backward Classes.The court observed that Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of seats in educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and appointments or posts in the services under the State within the Reservation for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021, is ultra vires the constitution.The bench comprising Justices M. Duraiswamy and K. Murali Shankar also said that caste alone cannot be a criteria to make reservation. It was also held that, in view of Article 31B and 102nd Constitutional amendment, the state legislature lacked competence to make such a law. The court observed that the Act had been passed by the State without any quantifiable data on population, socio educational status and representation of the backward classes in the services. The sub-classification done solely based on population data, in the absence of any objective criteria, is illegal in the eye of law and in violation of the Constitution of India, the bench added.The court considered the following issues raised in the batch of writ petitions(i) Whether the State Legislature has competency to make the impugned Act after 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018 and before 105th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021? (ii) Whether an Act placed under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India can be varied without amending the said Act? (iii) Whether the State Government had the power to take any decision with regard to Backward Classes in the teeth of the Constitutional provisions, more particularly, Article 338-B of the Constitution of India? (iv) Whether the State has power to provide reservation based on caste? (v) Whether reservation can be provided without any quantifiable data on population, socio educational status and representation of the backward classes in the services? (vi) Whether the impugned Act providing reservation of 10.5% to MBC(V), without any quantifiable data, is in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India? (vii) Whether the sub-classification of MBC into three categories can be done solely based on adequate population data, in the absence of any objective criteria?The following are some of the significant observations made in the judgment which runs to 184 pages:Lack of Competency of State LegislatureThe petitioners had relied on Maratha Quota judgment to contend that after 102nd Constitutional Amendment, the powers of the State Legislative Assembly to include and exclude Backward Class has been ousted and bestowed with Parliament of India under Article 342-A of the Constitution of India. The Government relied on the Constitution (105th Amendment) Act, 2021. It contended that the said amendment nullified the effect of Maratha quota judgment and restored the power of the States to identify and notify Backward Classes and thus, the power of the State for identification and notification of the Backward Classes stated to be lost by virtue of the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018, has been restored through the above said 105th Amendment to the Constitution. In this regard, the court observed:We are of the opinion that the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018, came into existence on 11.08.2018 and the Constitution (105th Amendment) Act, 2021, was enacted on 19.08.2021 and whereas the impugned Act 8 of 2021 came to be enacted on 26.02.2021 and therefore, we hold that as on the date of enactment of the impugned Act, the State Legislature has no power to enact such legislation and accordingly, the State Legislature has no competency to pass the impugned Act.The court accepted the contentions of the petitioners that in view of Article 31-B of the Constitution of India, the State Legislature has no power to enact the impugned Act without amending the Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994, which has been given Presidential Assent and placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India and the enactment of the impugned Act is in violation of the Constitution of India. In this regard, the court observed:Article 31-B of the Constitution of India mandates that until the Act placed in Ninth Schedule is amended or repealed by the competent Legislature, the said Act shall continue to be in force. Since the Act 45 of 1994 providing undivided 20% reservation for MBC is in force, without amending the same, the impugned Act providing internal reservation to MBC(V) is against the Constitutional provisions. There are 25 Acts of Tamil Nadu found place in the Ninth Schedule appended to the Constitution of India and 22 Acts are amending the Land Reform Acts. Every time, the Act in the Ninth Schedule was amended and the Amendment Acts have also been placed in the Ninth Schedule through Constitutional Amendment Acts under Article 368 of the Constitution of India.Reservation based on Caste aloneThe impugned legislation has been...

'Reservation Based On Caste Alone': Madras High Court Quashes 10.5% Internal Reservation To Vanniyar Community Under Most Backward Class Category

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

'Reservation Based On Caste Alone': Madras High Court Quashes 10.5% Internal Reservation To Vanniyar Community Under Most Backward Class Category

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers