The Supreme Court has adjourned a petition challenging the Madras High Court order that had declared 10.5 percent special internal reservation provided to Vanniyars, a most backward community (MBC), and their sub-castes in government jobs and educational institutions violative of Constitution of India and quashed it.
The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai listed the matter for further hearing tomorrow. The court sought submissions on whether the matter at hand can be decided by the division bench or alternatively be referred to a constitutional bench.
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 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 Vanniyar community out of the 20% reserved for the 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 the MBCs in educational institutions and for employment.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the state of Tamil Nadu, submitted that the question to be considered by the court as to whether the Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2021 is unconstitutional because it provides for sub-dividing reservation within old existing Most Backward Class reservation of 20%.
Singhvi added that the finding of the Madras High Court that any kind of sub-division was per-se illegal was erroneous. He referred to the Constitutional Bench judgement in KC Vasanth case wherein it was held that sub-division is valid and permissible.
Justice Rao: “If you feel this matter can be decided without referring to a larger bench, we are ready to do it.”
Singhvi replied candidly by stating that his instructions are not to seek a reference, but as an officer of the court, it was his personal opinion that the matter be referred to a constitutional bench.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi, who was appearing for the state of Tamil Nadu in one of the batch of petitions, argued that the impugned judgment was not clear in stating ambit of the repealing and amendment of the 1993 Act. He further argued that even after placing an act in the 9th Schedule the powers of the state legislature under Article 246 remains intact. Dwivedi was in favour of referring the case to a constitutional bench.
Also read: Supreme Court to hear the case related to legal control of Delhi bureaucrats on March 3
Senior Advocate P. Wilson ,appearing for petitioner in Item 5.1, relied upon the apex court judgement in Jayshree Patel Case, where it was held state holds power to make reservations in favor of particular communities, the quantum of reservation, the nature of benefits and the need of reservation along with all other matter falling in the ambit of Article 16, expect identification of LGBTQ+. Wilson added that this case could be decided without referring it to a constitutional bench.
The Court will continue to hear the submissions of Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan tomorrow, who was of the opinion that the case need not be referred to a larger bench.
Case Name- Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Ministry of Backward Classes Vs Denotified Tribes Welfare Association.