The Supreme Court has adjourned the appeal against the Madras High Court order that had quashed 10.5 percent special internal reservation provided to Vanniyars, a most backward community (MBC), and their sub-castes in government jobs and educational institutions.
The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai listed the matter for further hearing tomorrow.
The then incumbent AIADMK Government had passed the Vanniyar Reservation Act in February barely an hour before the model code of conduct came into effect for the Tamil Nadu Assembly polls in April 2021. Subsequently, it was implemented once the DMK Government came to power. The Act has a provision to provide 10.5% for Vanniyars out of the 20% reserved for MBCs.
The state of Tamil Nadu has provided 50% reservation to OBCs and an additional 18% to SC & ST in state government services since 1980. In Indra Sawhney Vs Union of India, the Supreme Court had upheld the said reservation and directed both the Central and State Governments to constitute a permanent commission for excluding and including the Backward Classes and directed not to exceed 50% of reservation in normal case.
The Government of Tamil Nadu enacted 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, to protect the existing 69% quota. Of the 69% reservation, 20% was reserved for MBCs in educational institutions and for employment.
Also read: Supreme Court to take up pleas related to Pegasus snooping on Friday
Senior Advocate P. Wilson, appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, submitted that the Sattanathan Commission used the Census data as basic data. We want to show the extensive assessment done in the Sattanathan Commission for the implementation of reservation.
Referring to the Amba Shankar Report, Wilson submitted that the chairman had proposed a methodology that sub-classification is only permitted only once a threshold of 20% is crossed.
Justice Rao: “When 7 members of the committee don’t agree with the Chairman, how can you rely on such report? How can a commission unanimously decide? In a 7-judges bench how can you go with the judgment given by one judge?”
Senior Advocate Wilson: “My lords, the whole report was with the government the suggestions of the Chairman and the dissenting arguments of the other members.”
The Court will resume hearing tomorrow and will hear the arguments of the respondents.
Also read: Madhya Pradesh HC disposes of PIL for fair, impartial enquiry