The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a plea seeking issuance of directions for setting aside the Centre's decision to implement all India counselling for UG and PG medical courses, without implementing 50% OBC reservation in Tamil Nadu.
A bench of Justices LN Rao, Hemant Gupta & S. Ravindra Bhat while dismissing the plea filed by Lok Sabha MP Dr. Thol Thirumavalavan, as withdrawn at behest of Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for Petitioner, stated that as directed on June 11 to aggrieved petitioners seeking similar relief, the petitioner should have approached the Madras High Court.
Justice Rao: If it's a matter regarding reservation in TN, why are you coming here? Last week we sent all the parties who had come before us back to Madras HC, you should have also gone.
The bench was referring to the petitions filed by Political parties Communist Party of India (Marxist) Tamil Nadu wing and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) which contended "there is no rational basis for not extending the benefit of 50 per cent reservation for OBCs, as envisaged under the State laws of Tamil Nadu, to the State-captured seats in the All India Quota".
"We are happy to see so many political parties at the same platform for the same cause, something unusual for Tamil Nadu", the bench of Justices LN Rao, Krishna Murari & Ravindra Bhat had remarked, before allowing the petitioners to withdraw the plea(s).
The court had however granted them liberty to approach the High Court.
Thirumavalavan in the instant plea had sought directions for setting aside the decision of the Government so as to not implement any special provision under Article 15(4) of the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC/OBC) of citizens in respect of the All India Quota.
The petitioner stated that the non-implementation of the reservations ultra vires Article 14 read with Article 15(4) of the Constitution,
"a decision by the State to either implement or to not implement any purported affirmative action (including reservations) that the State fails to justify based on relevant factors is not merely arbitrary, irrational, and unreasonable. Such a decision is an affront to the value of substantive equality that this Court ought to intervene to prevent, prohibit and/or correct."
In light of this, it was contended that there was a need for a policy to be evolved by the Government for allotting the central pool seats (i.e. Nominee of Government of India) in a manner that takes into account the demands of social justice and social transformation and ensure that "privilege of the already privileged is not reinforced".
While dismissing the plea(s) filed by political parties as withdrawn seeking issuance of similar directions as the instant plea, the bench had remarked,
"What is the fundamental right to reservation?"
The bench said that the remedy of Article 32 of Constitution was available only for violation of fundamental rights, and asked "whose fundamental rights were being violated in the instant case?"