105th Constitutional Amendment Act Is Prospective In Nature : Supreme Court In Vanniyar Quota Case

In its judgment holding that the Tamil Nadu law providing internal reservation of 10.5 % to the Vanniyar Community under the category Most Backward Classes is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution 105th Amendment Act is prospective in nature.The bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai rejected the contention that the Constitution 105th Amendment Act is clarificatory in nature and has to be given retrospective effect from the date on which the 102nd Amendment Act came into effect.The Court held that the 102nd Amendment Act held the field at the time of enactment of the Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the services under the State within the Reservation for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021.One of the issues considered by the Madras High Court was whether the State Legislature has competency to make the impugned Act after 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018 and before 105th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021? Before the High Court, the writ petitioners 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 and 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 High 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.Before the Apex Court, the appellants contended that the 105th amendment is clarificatory and dates back to the introduction of Article 342-A. It was submitted that the question of whether the 105th Amendment Act is clarificatory involves interpretation of the 105th Amendment Act and therefore to be decided by a larger Bench. Rejecting the said contention, the bench observed:"We have not been called upon to interpret the 105th Amendment Act and nor do we find any vagueness as regards when the 105th Amendment Act has come into effect. The 105th Amendment Act cannot be said to be a validating amendment, as admittedly the 102nd Amendment Act has not been invalidated by this Court......The contention of the Appellants that the 105th Amendment Act, being an amendment relating to procedure, has to be construed as retrospective along the lines of K.S. Paripoornan (supra), is misconceived. Identifying certain communities which are to be deemed as SEBCs for the purposes of the Central Government and the States, respectively, cannot be said to be a matter of procedure. The procedural aspect of the 102nd Amendment Act and the 105th Amendment Act is only the manner of publication of the lists of SEBCs, whereas the substantive element of the said amendments is identifying and recognising certain communities as SEBCs. Thus, we see no force in the submission of the Appellants that the 105th Amendment Act is clarificatory in nature and has to be given retrospective effect from the date on which the 102nd Amendment Act came into effect."The Court also clarified that 102nd Amendment only prohibits the State from undertaking is identifying a caste as SEBC or including or excluding a community from the list notified by the President."We are not in agreement with the contention of the Respondents that determining the extent of reservation for a community amongst the list of Most Backward Classes amounts to identification. In view thereof, the High Court has committed an error in holding that the 2021 Act is violative of Article 342-A. B. Permissibility of sub-classification amongst backward", the court said.Case details Pattali Makkal Katchi Vs A. Mayilerumperumal | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 333 | CA 2600 of 2022 | 31 March 2022Coram: Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B R GavaiHeadnotesSummary: Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the services under the State within the Reservation for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021 declared...

105th Constitutional Amendment Act Is Prospective In Nature : Supreme Court In Vanniyar Quota Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags