'Population Percentage Can't Be Sole Basis For Internal Reservation' : Detailed Analysis Of Supreme Court Judgment In Vanniyar Quota Case

The Supreme Court, on Thursday, held that the Tamil Nadu Act ("2021 Act") which provides internal reservation of 10.5% to the Vanniyar community for appointment in government jobs and admission in educational institutions, is violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16, as there is no substantial basis for differentiating the Vanniyar community from the other MBCs and DNCs. A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai noted that the recommendation of Justice M. Thanikachalam (Retd.) to the State Government of Tamil Nadu to provide internal reservation to the Vanniyar community was not backed by any contemporaneous caste-based data. The classification had been effected solely on the basis of population data, in the absence of any objective criteria, and was thus in contravention of the decision of the Apex Court in Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) 10 SCC 396 and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, wherein it was held that adequacy of representation is different from proportionate representation. Background The State Government of Tamil Nadu appointed the first Backward Class Commission on 13.11.1969 under the Chairpersonship of A.N. Sattanathan. In its report submitted in November, 1970, the Commission recommended 33% of posts under the State Government for Backward Classes as well as seats in professional and educational institutions. Accordingly, the Government had enhanced reservation for Backward Classes from 25% to 31%. On 01.02.1980, the reservation was enhanced to 50% for appointment in government jobs and admission in educational institutions. The Second Backward Classes Commission chaired by J.A. Ambashankar was appointed on 13.12.1982. In its report, the Chairman recommended compartmental reservation, but 14 other members of the Commission took a contrary view. On 28.03.1989, out of the 50% reservation for Backward Classes 20% was reserved for Most Backward Classes (MBCs) and Denotified Communities (DNCs). Thereafter, the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993 ("1994 Act") was enacted which conferred 20% reservation to MNCs and DNCs for appointment in services and admissions to educational institutions. On 13.06.2012, a report was submitted by the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission, headed by Justice M.S. Janarthanam. In the said report the Chairperson recommended internal reservation of 10.5% for the Vanniyar community, whereas the remaining six members dissented. Thereafter, on 08.07.2020, the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission was reconstituted and Justice M. Thanikachalam was appointed as the Chairperson. In the meanwhile, another Commission headed by Justice A. Kulasekaran was appointed to collect caste-wise quantifiable data. Without waiting for the report of the Kulasekaran Commission, the Government on 18.02.2021 wrote to Justice Thanikachalam seeking his opinion on internal reservation. By letter dated 22.02.2021 he recommended sub-classification of the 20% reservation available to the MBCs and DNCs. Accordingly, the 2021 Act was passed on 26.02.2021 which created an internal reservation of 10.5% for the Vanniyar community. It was challenged before the Madras High Court and eventually quashed by it. Legislative competence of the State The High Court had opined that in view of the fact that the Constitution (102nd Amendment), which had taken away the power of the State legislature of the power to identify, include or exclude Backward Classes and bestowed the same on the Parliament under Article 342A of the Constitution of India, was in force when the 2021 Act was passed, the State lacked legislative competence to enact the said statute. Senior Advocate, Dr. Abhishek Singhvi appearing on behalf of the State- appellants submitted that the 2021 Act did not identify any Backward Classes, but sub-classified the MBCs and allocated 10.5% reservation for the Vanniyar community from the 20% reservation for MBCs and DNCs. Moreover, he argued that the Constitution (105th Amendment) Act, 2021 was clarificatory, and in essence he contended that it would have retrospective effect. Senior Advocate, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the original petitioners before the High Court, submitted that when the 102nd Amendment was in force, only the President had the power to identify SEBCs, particularly in view of the judgment in Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister (2021) 8 SCC 1. On the submission of retrospectivity of the 105th Amendment Act, he argued that considering the Amendment Act did not mention retrospective application, undoubtedly it only had prospective effect. He also submitted that it was not clarificatory as a judgment cannot be clarified by the Parliament. Analysis of the Supreme CourtThe Bench was of...

'Population Percentage Can't Be Sole Basis For Internal Reservation' : Detailed Analysis Of Supreme Court Judgment In Vanniyar Quota Case

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags