Validity Of Vanniyar Internal Reservation : Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Need For Larger Bench

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the issue whether the matter pertaining to the Tamil Nadu law that sub-classified the 20% reservation available to the Most Backward Classes to provide Vanniyar community 10.5% reservation in educational institutions and government jobs, entails constitutional interpretations and ought to be referred to a larger bench. A Bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai was hearing submissions in the appeal assailing the order of the Madras High Court, wherein the said Tamil Nadu law providing 10.5% internal reservation to Vanniyar Community was quashed, inter alia, on the ground that in the light of Article 31B of the Constitution of India and the 102nd Constitutional Amendment, the State legislature lacked competence to enact such a statute. By virtue 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 De-notified Communities Act, 2021 ("2021 Act") that came into effect on 26.02.2021, out of 116 communities, the Vanniyar caste was categorically given 10.5% reservation, 7% was for the 93 de-notified communities and the remaining 2.5% for the other 22 Most Backward Communities. Eventually, the Act was challenged for providing ex-orbital and exclusive reservation to Vanniyar community without adequate quantifiable data; in derogation of the the principles laid down in Dr Jaishree Laxmanrao Patil v The Chief Minister and others and 102nd Constitutional Amendment. At the outset, Senior Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Singhvi appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu in one of the batch petitions sought the Apex Court's indulgence in resolving the issue framed as under - Whether the Tamil Nadu 2021 Act w.e.f 26.02.2021, is unconstitutional because it provides for sub-divided reservation within the old existing Most Backward Class reservation of 20%. Elucidating further on the sub-classification envisaged in the 2021 Act, he asserted that the legislation was struck down by the High Court, inter alia, on the ground that sub-classification is unconstitutional, which he later goes on to argue, is erroneous in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and others 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217."This Act within the 20% provides for subdivision of 10.5% for Vanniyars, 7% for DNCs and 2.5% of remaining for education and service. The whole Act has been struck down stating sub-classification is unconstitutional." Mr. Singhvi identified the other grounds on which the 2021 Act was declared to be ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India. The 2021 Act suffered from lack of competence because - It did not have Presidential assent;Sub-classification was not permissible as per E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 2005 (1) SCC 394;It was hit by 102nd Constitutional Amendment and the judgment in Maratha Reservation matter (Jaishree Patil).Reservation cannot be based on caste alone.Lack of quantifiable data Mr. Singhvi proposed to delineate the relevant factual background to demonstrate the evolution of the concerned reservation. Backward Classes Commissions In 1969, the Government of Tamil Nadu appointed the First Backward Classes Commission chaired by A.N. Sattanathan, which gave its recommendation in November, 1970. 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 was referred to as the Ambashankar Door-to-door survey. As per its recommendation submitted in 1985, the total reservation for Backward Classes was to be 50% and within that the MBCs and DNCs were to be subsumed. On 28.03.1989, vide G.O. Ms. No. 242, the 50% reservation for Backward Classes was divided into - 30% to Backward Classes with 132 castes and 20% to Most Backward Classes/De-notified Communities with 109 castes, which has now increased to 116 castes. 1994 Act The Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institution and Appointments or Posts in the Services Under the State) Act 1993 was enacted which came into force on 19.07.1994 ("1994...

Validity Of Vanniyar Internal Reservation : Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Need For Larger Bench

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags