Supreme Court Declares 2021 TN Act Giving Vanniyars Internal Reservation In OBC Quota Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court on Thursday held the 2021 Tamil Nadu Act that provided 10.5% reservation in educational institutions and government jobs for the Vanniyar community out of the 20% reservation available to the Most Backward Classes to be unconstitutional.The Court upheld the Madras High Court order quashing Tamil Nadu law ("2021 Act"), the Court held that the State had the legislative competence to make sub-classifications among the backward classes.A bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai observed that the State Government failed to provide data that Vanniyars required to be treated as a separate group within the MBCs.With respect to the issue of caste being the determinant for internal reservation, the Bench was of the view that caste can be the starting point for providing internal reservation, but the State Government has to justify that it was reasonable and show that caste was not the sole basis for classification. The Bench noted that the State Government was not justified in basing the sub-classification on the letter of Justice Thanikachalam, Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission, which relied on the Janarthanam Commission Report wherein the data was antiquated and based on population. All the members of the Janarthanam Commission, apart from the Chairman, were also not in favour of recommending internal reservation, in the absence of the updates caste-based data. The Bench held that the sub-classification was not backed by relevant quantifiable data rendering the 2021 Act violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. "We are of the opinion that there is no basis to treat vanniyar as a separate group compared to others backward classes...Thus the 2021 act is ultra vires Articles 14 and 16", Justice L Nageswara Rao read out the operative portion of the judgment. Full copy of the judgment is yet to be uploaded. Court recognizes State's power to order sub-classificationThe Court however held that the State Government had the legislative competence to pass the Act.The Bench held that there was no bar on the legislative competence of the State to enact the 2021 Act. It was of the opinion that the Constitution (105th Amendment) Act, 2021 has prospective effect and therefore during the enactment of the 2021 Act, the Constitution (102nd Amendment) Act, 2018 was in effect. But, considering the fact that the 2021 Act was an extension of the 1994 Act, as it merely apportions the percentage of reservation for the purpose of determining the extent of reservation between MBCs and DNCs already identified pursuant to the enactment of the 1994 Act, it is permissible in terms with the judgment of the Apex Court in Jaishri Patil. Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney, it held that there is no bar in the sub-classification amongst Backward Classes. It was clarified that just because the 1994 Act had received the assent of the President under A. 31C and was put in the Ninth Schedule, it cannot prohibit the State legislature from enacting a law, which is ancillary to the 1994 Act, with the approval of the Governor.It was clarified that the findings were limited to the issues raised in relation to the 2021 Act and no opinion was expressed on the merit of the writ petitions challenging the 1994 Act, pending before the Apex Court. The State of Tamil Nadu had, primarily, submitted that the 2021 Act merely sub-classified within the 20% reservation provided to the Most Backward Classes, whereas the respondents argued that the State had attempted to 'identify' communities in derogation of the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act without placing reliance on any quantifiable data.Also Read : 'Population Percentage Can't Be Sole Basis For Internal Reservation' : Detailed Analysis Of Supreme Court Judgment In Vanniyar Quota Case Background After the Constitution came into existence the caste based reservation in the State of Madras was quashed and was replaced by class based reservation. On 13.11.1969, the Government of Tamil Nadu appointed the First Backward Classes Commission, under the Chairmanship of A.N. Sattanathan. It recommended 33% of the posts under the State Government should be reserved for the candidates of OBC. Another recommendation put forth by the Commission was that castes treated as Most Backward Classes (MBCs) should be lumped together and the increased percentage of reservation, i.e. 33% should be distributed among Backward Classes and MBCs in the said manner i.e. 17% and 16%. This was accepted by the Government and the reservation for Backward Class was increased from 25% to 31%. In 1980, the De-notified communities ("DNCs") were required to be added within this 31% reservation. In 1983, the Second Backward Classes Commission was constituted and the same was presided over by J.A. Ambashankar, I.A.S., (Retd). It conducted a door to door survey. 50% reservation was provided to the Backward Classes till 1989....

Supreme Court Declares 2021 TN Act Giving Vanniyars Internal Reservation In OBC Quota Unconstitutional

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Supreme Court Declares 2021 TN Act Giving Vanniyars Internal Reservation In OBC Quota Unconstitutional

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers