Vanniyar Internal Quota Based On Data That 20% MBC Reservation Hasn't Benefited Them : TN Govt Tells Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court continued hearing submissions in the challenge to the Madras High Court order quashing Tamil Nadu law ("2021 Act") that provided internal reservation in education and jobs for the Vanniyar community. A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai heard arguments testing the sub-classification of the 20% reservation available to the Most Backward Classes to provide Vanniyar community 10.5% reservation in educational institutions and government jobs on the touchstone of the principles envisaged in the Constitution of India. On the previous occasion the Bench had heard arguments on the issue of reference to a Constitutional Bench. Upon hearing both the parties and on perusal of material on record, the Bench had finally decided against reference, stating that the matter did not entail constitutional interpretations. Adequate Quantifiable Data Available At the outset, Senior Advocate, Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu in one of the batch petitions, referred to Paragraph 34 of the Impugned order of the Madras High Court, which reads as under - "34. On a reading of the above judgment, it is clear that the Constitution of India intended all the castes including the sub-castes, races and tribes mentioned in the list to be members of one group for the purpose of the Constitution of India and further, this group cannot be sub-divided for any purpose. Moreover, the Constitution of India intended that all the castes included in the Schedule under Article 341 would be "deemed to be"one class of persons." He submitted that the view taken by the High Court was in line with the decision of the Apex Court in Balaji [AIR 1963 SC 649], which was followed in Janaki Prasad Parimoo [(1973) 1 SCC 420]. However, it was clearly enunciated in a nine-bench judgment in Indra Sawhney that sub-classification is permissible. Referring to Paragraph 38 of the Impugned order he argued that the 1994 Act ("Parent Act") was preserved for the assent of the president because it needed the protection of Articles 31B and 31C. He stated that the 2021 Act being a State legislature, the assent of the Governor is good enough. He further Paragraph 38 reads as under - "38. Further, when the Act 45 of 1994 got the Assent of President of India under Article 31-C of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be varied by the Governor even if the Council of Ministers had advised his Assent to the impugned Act. A combined reading of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution of India makes it very clear that the Constitutional scheme warrants that the Governor ought to have reserved the Bill for the Assent of the President of India under Article 31-C of the Constitution of India." He emphasised that the similar Acts of 2006 and 2009 whereby reservation was extended to other communities were neither reserved for the presidential assent nor included in the Ninth Schedule. He referred to the decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. PUCL (2009) 8 SCC 46 "PRESIDENTIAL ASSENT 13. It was held by the High Court that Presidential Assent was necessary and the 1999 Act was enacted to by-pass the mandatory requirement of the President's Assent. In determining the said issue, it again ought to have posed unto itself the right question, viz., whether the Presidential Assent was necessary for enacting a statute which came within the purview of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The answer thereto must be rendered in negative. The 1975 Act dealt with both agricultural and non-agricultural lands. Transfer of land comes within the purview of Entry 6, List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. There exists aParliamentary Act in that behalf, as for example, Transfer of Property Act. Only because the 1975 Act could be held to be in conflict with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, the Presidential Assent was necessary having regard to Clause (2) of Article 254 of the Constitution of India but once the said statute is repealed and in its place a new Act is brought on the statute book, which comes strictly within the purview of Entry 49, List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, no Presidential Assent would be necessary. Presidential Assent would be necessary for the purpose of amendment of the Act and not for enacting a separate statute which came within the purview of a different entry and a different List. It is furthermore well-known that Article 254 of the Constitution of India would be attracted only in a case where two statutes are enacted under the Concurrent List, viz., one by the State Legislature and the other by the Parliament of India, and not in any other case." Ms. Vaidyanathan submitted that the impugned act was not a separate act enacted by a competent State legislature. Moreover, not being...

Vanniyar Internal Quota Based On Data That 20% MBC Reservation Hasn't Benefited Them : TN Govt Tells Supreme Court

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags