Supreme Court Holds Tamil Nadu's 10.5% Reservation For Vanniyar Community Ultra Vires Articles 14, 15 And 16

Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mr. P. Wilson, Mr. Rakesh Diwedi, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Mr. M. N. Rao, and Mr. Radhakrishnan, Senior Counsel appeared for the Appellants and Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Mr. K. M. Vijayan, Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Mr. V. Prakash, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, and Mr. Colin Gonsalves, Senior Counsel appeared for the Respondents.

The Madras High Court at Madurai had declared unconstitutional, 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. The said judgment was in appeal before the Apex Court.

The Court relied on State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 SCR 525 wherein it was held that the classification made in the subject GO (in that case) proceeded on the basis of religion race, and caste and constituted a violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 29(2).

In the writs filed before the High Court, the High Court made the following issues for consideration:

(i) Whether the State Legislature has competency to make the impugned Act after the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018, and before 105th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021?

(ii) Whether an Act placed under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India can be varied without amending the said Act?

(iii) Whether the State Government had the power to take any decision with regard to Backward Classes in the teeth of the Constitutional provisions, more particularly, Article 338-B of the Constitution of India?

(iv) Whether the State has the power to provide reservation based on caste?

(v) Whether reservation can be provided without any quantifiable data on population, socio-educational status, and representation of the backward classes in the services?

(vi) Whether the impugned Act providing reservation of 10.5% to MBC(V), without any quantifiable data, is in violation of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of

India?

(vii) Whether the sub-classification of MBC into three categories can be done solely based on adequate population data, in the absence of any objective criteria?

The High Court held that the State had no competence to enact the 2021 Act and it further found that the internal reservation made only on the basis of caste is violative of the Constitution. The High Court held that there was no quantifiable data relating to the population, socio-economic status, and representation of the backward classes in the services.

A preliminary submission was made before the Apex Court that the matter be referred to a Constitution Bench.

The Court noted that "However, we are not in agreement with the submission of Dr. Singhvi that the question of whether the 105th Amendment Act is clarificatory involves interpretation of the 105^th Amendment Act."

The Court held that it was not necessary to refer the appeals to a larger bench.

Effect of 102^nd Amendment Act, 2018 and 105^th Amendment Act, 2021

The Court made the following crucial observations:

"Under the 2021 Act, sub-classification of the MBCs and DNCs and apportionment of a particular percentage of reservation is for the purpose of determining the extent of reservation for communities within the MBCs and DNCs, which is a permissible exercise of power by the State Government, according to the majority judgment in Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil (supra). What the 102nd Amendment 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."

Sub-classification amongst backward classes

The Court on this issue, held that the finding of the High Court in this regard was erroneous as the consideration of the law laid down in E.V. Chinnaiah Case showed that a Presidential list for SEBCs did not come into existence.

Bar on Competence under Article 31-B of the Constitution

The Court noted that Article 31-B prescribes that no statute placed in the Ninth Schedule shall be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, takes away, or abridges any right conferred under Part III of the Constitution.

The Court made the following crucial observations:

"In our view, the 2021 Act cannot be said to be suffering from the vice of lack of legislative competence, merely because it deals with matters associated with or ancillary to the 1994 Act. Classification of backward classes has been made by the 1994 Act, which was placed under the Ninth Schedule. It is clear from the judgments referred to above that the State has the power to amend or repeal a statute which has been placed under the Ninth Schedule. It is settled law that any amendment made to a statute placed under the Ninth Schedule does not get protection under Article 31-B, unless the said amendment is also included in the Ninth Schedule."

On the issue of caste-based classification, the Court made the following observations:

"It is clear from the above that caste can be the basis for providing reservation, but it cannot be the sole basis. At present we are concerned with sub-classification. As stated, it has been held in Indra Sawhney (supra) that there is no constitutional or legal bar to a State categorising backward classes as backward and more backward. In the present case, sub-classification for providing internal reservation to a particular community, i.e., the Vanniakula Kshatriyas, will also be governed by the same principle, namely, while caste can be the starting point for providing internal reservation, it is incumbent on the State Government to justify the reasonableness of the subclassification and demonstrate that caste has not been the only basis."

On the Constitutional validity of the subject Act, the Court held that judicial scrutiny is permissible to enquire into whether the conclusions arrived at by the Commission are supported by the data and materials referred to in its report.

The Court held that the internal reservation recommended in the report of Justice Janarthanam and approved by Justice Thanikarchalam based only on population cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by the Court.

The Court made the following crucial observations:

"At the cost of repetition, at the time of enactment of the 2021 Act, 116 castes were to be found in the cumulative lists of MBCs and DNCs. Choosing a particular caste and providing a special reservation of 10.5 per cent out of the 20 per cent to such caste is discriminatory, in the absence of any sound differentiation from communities who are similarly situated and were, therefore, grouped together for the purposes of receiving the benefits of 20 per cent reservation."

The Court held that there was no substantial basis for classifying the Vanniakula Kshatriyas into one group to be treated differently from the remaining 115 communities within the MBCs and DNCs and therefore the Act is in violation of Articles 14, 15, and 16.