1. Challenge to the 2021 Act providing internal reservation of 10.5% for Vanniakula Kshatriyas within the 20% quota for Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities. (Para 1 , 10 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 298
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai)
L. Nageswara Rao, B. R. Gavai, JJ.
Pattali Makkal Katchi – Appellant
Versus
A. Mayilerumperumal & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2600 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19574 of 2021), With Civil Appeal No. 2601 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No. 19378 of 2021), Civil Appeal No. 2602 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19916 of 2021), Civil Appeal No. 2603 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19776 of 2021), Civil Appeal No. 2604 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19582 of 2021), Civil Appeal No. 2605 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.5077 of 2022 @ Diary No.28073 of 2021), Civil Appeal No. 2606 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19568 of 2021), Civil Appeal No. 2607 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19401 of 2021), Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.19683 of 2021), Civil Appeal No. 2609 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No. 20167 of 2021), Civil Appeal No. 2610 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.21069 of 2021), Civil Appeal No. 2611 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) No.21070 of 2021), Civil Appeal Nos. 2612-2642 of 2022 (@ SLP (Civil) Nos.2312-2342 of 2022)
Decided On : 31-03-2022
Important Points
The Court ruled that while States can sub-classify backward classes, internal reservation cannot be based solely on caste or population. The 2021 Act was declared unconstitutional for lacking contemporaneous data on relative backwardness and inadequate representation, thereby violating Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Reservation and Affirmative Action
Act Referred
BOMBAY MUNICIPAL BOROUGHS ACT: S.73
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.142, Art.145(3), Art.15, Art.15(4), Art.16, Art.16(4), Art.29(2), Art.31(b), Art.31(c), Art.32, Art.330, Art.332, Art.338(b), Art.338(b)(9), Art.341, Art.342(a), Art.366(26)(c), Art.39(b), Art.39(c)
PASSPORT RULES: R.3
PASSPORTS ACT: S.3
TAMIL NADU BACKWARD CLASSES, SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES RESERVATION OF SEATS IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND OF APPOINTMENTS OR POSTS IN THE SERVICES UNDER THE STATE ACT: S.3(a), S.7
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.142, Art.145(3), Art.15, Art.15(4), Art.16, Art.16(4), Art.29(2), Art.31(b), Art.31(c), Art.32, Art.330, Art.332, Art.338(b), Art.338(b)(9), Art.341, Art.342(a), Art.366(26)(c), Art.39(b), Art.39(c)
PASSPORT RULES: R.3
PASSPORTS ACT: S.3
TAMIL NADU BACKWARD CLASSES, SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES RESERVATION OF SEATS IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND OF APPOINTMENTS OR POSTS IN THE SERVICES UNDER THE STATE ACT: S.3(a), S.7
Headnote
(A) Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of Seats in 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 - Unconstitutional declaration by the Madras High Court - Court reiterated that post-102nd Amendment, powers of states to identify backward classes are limited, following 'Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister' - Classification solely on socio-economic factors without quantifiable data was held impermissible - 2021 Act declared violative of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. (Paras 12, 77)
(B) Legislative Competence - The High Court held state’s legislative competence was limited post-102nd Amendment, curtailing states from enacting laws without quantifiable data regarding socio-economic status of backward classes. (Paras 11, 78)
(C) Caste-based Classification - The classification under the 2021 Act lacks substantial basis and violates constitutional provisions for equality. (Paras 75, 77)
Facts of the case:
The Tamil Nadu 2021 Act sought to provide internal reservations for Vanniakula Kshatriyas within the combined reservation for MBCs and DNCs, declared unconstitutional by the High Court due to lack of valid legislative basis and quantifiable data on representation.
Findings of Court:
The 2021 Act did not adhere to constitutional requirements regarding the identification and reservation for backward classes.
Issues: The main issue involved whether the state had the legislative competence to enact the 2021 Act and whether the classification was constitutionally valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The Act’s enactment without considering the constitutional amendments and lack of adequate data for classification resulted in its unconstitutionality.
Result: Appeals dismissed, confirming the High Court's ruling.
(B) Legislative Competence - The High Court held state’s legislative competence was limited post-102nd Amendment, curtailing states from enacting laws without quantifiable data regarding socio-economic status of backward classes. (Paras 11, 78)
(C) Caste-based Classification - The classification under the 2021 Act lacks substantial basis and violates constitutional provisions for equality. (Paras 75, 77)
Facts of the case:
The Tamil Nadu 2021 Act sought to provide internal reservations for Vanniakula Kshatriyas within the combined reservation for MBCs and DNCs, declared unconstitutional by the High Court due to lack of valid legislative basis and quantifiable data on representation.
Findings of Court:
The 2021 Act did not adhere to constitutional requirements regarding the identification and reservation for backward classes.
Issues: The main issue involved whether the state had the legislative competence to enact the 2021 Act and whether the classification was constitutionally valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The Act’s enactment without considering the constitutional amendments and lack of adequate data for classification resulted in its unconstitutionality.
Result: Appeals dismissed, confirming the High Court's ruling.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
- fundamental rights
- reservation and affirmative action
- constitutional amendments
- ninth schedule
- presidential assent
- administrative law
Advocates appeared:
For the parties :Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. S.Thananjayan, Adv. Mr. Ilavarasan, Advocate Ms. Promila, AOR Mr. B.Karunakaran,Adv. Mr. M.R.Jothi Manian,Adv. Mr. Sasikumar,Adv. Mr. Elavarasan,Adv. Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, AOR Mr. MN Rao Sr.Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan, AOR Mr. K Balu,Adv. Mr. M.R.Jothimanian adv Mr. Radhakrishnan, Sr.Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan, AOR Mr. K Balu,Adv. Mr. M.R.Jothimanian adv Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Gowtham Kumar,Adv. Ms. Pallavi Sen Gupta,Adv. Ms. Garima Jain,Adv. Ms. Aakriti Priya,Adv. Md. Shahrukh,Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav,Adv. Mr. Suhail Ahmed,adv. Ms. Lakshmi Rao,Adv. Mr. C.S.Vaidyanathan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Gowtham Kumar,Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Mr. Ankit Agarwal,Adv. Mr. Prateek Bhardwaj,Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi Sr Adv Mr. Varun K Chopra Adv. Mr. D.Kumanan, AOR Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.Krishna Murthy,Sr.Adv. Mr. D.Kumanan, AOR Mr. P.Wilson,Sr.Adv. Mr. D.Kumanan, AOR Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.Krishna Murthy,Sr.Adv. Mr. D.Kumanan, AOR Mr. M.Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. RajaRajeshwaran. S, Adv Mr. P.M. Vishnu Varthanan, Adv Mr. R. Vignesh, Adv Mr. M.Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. Prabhu Rama Subramanian,Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathi,Adv. Mr. Karuppaiah Mayyappan,Adv. Mr. Raja Rajeshwaran,Adv. Mr. Murugendran,Adv. Mr. K.Nagendra Prasad,Adv. Ms. Priya R.,Adv. Mr. Colin Gonsalves,Sr.Adv. Mr. Shiyas Kumar,Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra,AOR Mr. K.M.Vijayan,Sr.Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Ms. M.Venmani,Adv. Mr. Beno Bencigar,Adv. Mr. K.V.Jagdishwaran,Adv. Mr. N.P.Haibila,Adv. Mr. Parijat Kishore, AOR Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR Mr. Jaideep Gupta,Sr.Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mr. Anu K.Joy,Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar,Adv. Mr. Dama Seshadiri Naidu, Adv. Mr. M.P.Parthiban, Adv. Mr. R. Sudhakaran, Adv. Mr. Ananvay Anandvardhan, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Chapalgaokar, Adv. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr Adv. Mr. Gopal Shankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.P.Parthiban, Adv. Ms. Shalini Mishra, Adv. Ms. Shivani Vij, Adv. Mr. V. Prakash, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.P.Parthiban, AOR, Mr. Porkodi, Adv. Mr. S. Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. A.S.Vairawan, Adv. Mr. C. Ramar, Adv. Mr. G.Ananda Selvam,Adv. Mr. Mayil Sami K.,Adv. Mr. Muthu Ganesa Pandian,Adv. Dr. Ram Sankar,Adv. Dr. A. Santhakumaran,Adv. Mr. S.Vinayak,Adv. Mr. Sanchit Maheshwari,Adv. Ms. Lakshmi Ramamurthy, AOR Mr. R.Balasubramanian,Sr.Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. Y.Lokesh,Adv. Mr. V.sibi Kargil,Adv. Mr. Arun Singh,Adv. Mr. Anubhav Chaturvedi,Adv. Mr. Abhisar Thakral,Adv. Mr. Pankaj Agarwal,Adv. Mr. N.B.V.Srinivasa Reddy,Adv. Mr. N.Suresha,Adv. Mr. G.S.Mani,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Maurya,Adv. Mr. Abhay Singh Yadav,Adv. Mr. Kunwar Siddartha,Adv. Mr. Ajay Singh,Adv. Mr. R. Sathish, AOR Mr. R.Anand,Adv. Mr. Nithin Saravanan,Adv. Ms. Arunima Singh,Adv. Ms. Priyadarshini,Adv. Mr. Ridhim Malhotra,adv. Ms. Manicka Priya Saravanan,Adv. Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, AOR Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B,Adv. Mr. Karuppaiah Meyyappan,Adv. Ms. Priya R,Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Rahul Kaushik,Adv. Mr. Sanjay Visen,Adv. Mr. A.Rajarajan,Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen,Adv. Mr. Babita Mishra,Adv. Mr. Prabhu Ramasubramanian,Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B. Adv. Mr. G.Murugendran,Adv. Mr. Karuppaiah Meeyyappan,Adv. Ms. Priya R., Adv.
For the parties :Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. S.Thananjayan, Adv. Mr. Ilavarasan, Advocate Ms. Promila, AOR Mr. B.Karunakaran,Adv. Mr. M.R.Jothi Manian,Adv. Mr. Sasikumar,Adv. Mr. Elavarasan,Adv. Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, AOR Mr. MN Rao Sr.Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan, AOR Mr. K Balu,Adv. Mr. M.R.Jothimanian adv Mr. Radhakrishnan, Sr.Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan, AOR Mr. K Balu,Adv. Mr. M.R.Jothimanian adv Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Gowtham Kumar,Adv. Ms. Pallavi Sen Gupta,Adv. Ms. Garima Jain,Adv. Ms. Aakriti Priya,Adv. Md. Shahrukh,Adv. Mr. Prateek Yadav,Adv. Mr. Suhail Ahmed,adv. Ms. Lakshmi Rao,Adv. Mr. C.S.Vaidyanathan,Sr.Adv. Mr. Gowtham Kumar,Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Mr. Ankit Agarwal,Adv. Mr. Prateek Bhardwaj,Adv. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi Sr Adv Mr. Varun K Chopra Adv. Mr. D.Kumanan, AOR Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.Krishna Murthy,Sr.Adv. Mr. D.Kumanan, AOR Mr. P.Wilson,Sr.Adv. Mr. D.Kumanan, AOR Mr. Mukul Rohtagi,Sr.Adv. Mr. V.Krishna Murthy,Sr.Adv. Mr. D.Kumanan, AOR Mr. M.Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. RajaRajeshwaran. S, Adv Mr. P.M. Vishnu Varthanan, Adv Mr. R. Vignesh, Adv Mr. M.Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. Prabhu Rama Subramanian,Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathi,Adv. Mr. Karuppaiah Mayyappan,Adv. Mr. Raja Rajeshwaran,Adv. Mr. Murugendran,Adv. Mr. K.Nagendra Prasad,Adv. Ms. Priya R.,Adv. Mr. Colin Gonsalves,Sr.Adv. Mr. Shiyas Kumar,Adv. Mr. Satya Mitra,AOR Mr. K.M.Vijayan,Sr.Adv. Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Ms. M.Venmani,Adv. Mr. Beno Bencigar,Adv. Mr. K.V.Jagdishwaran,Adv. Mr. N.P.Haibila,Adv. Mr. Parijat Kishore, AOR Mr. Satya Mitra, AOR Mr. Jaideep Gupta,Sr.Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mr. Anu K.Joy,Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar,Adv. Mr. Dama Seshadiri Naidu, Adv. Mr. M.P.Parthiban, Adv. Mr. R. Sudhakaran, Adv. Mr. Ananvay Anandvardhan, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Chapalgaokar, Adv. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr Adv. Mr. Gopal Shankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.P.Parthiban, Adv. Ms. Shalini Mishra, Adv. Ms. Shivani Vij, Adv. Mr. V. Prakash, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.P.Parthiban, AOR, Mr. Porkodi, Adv. Mr. S. Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. A.S.Vairawan, Adv. Mr. C. Ramar, Adv. Mr. G.Ananda Selvam,Adv. Mr. Mayil Sami K.,Adv. Mr. Muthu Ganesa Pandian,Adv. Dr. Ram Sankar,Adv. Dr. A. Santhakumaran,Adv. Mr. S.Vinayak,Adv. Mr. Sanchit Maheshwari,Adv. Ms. Lakshmi Ramamurthy, AOR Mr. R.Balasubramanian,Sr.Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay,Adv. Mr. Y.Lokesh,Adv. Mr. V.sibi Kargil,Adv. Mr. Arun Singh,Adv. Mr. Anubhav Chaturvedi,Adv. Mr. Abhisar Thakral,Adv. Mr. Pankaj Agarwal,Adv. Mr. N.B.V.Srinivasa Reddy,Adv. Mr. N.Suresha,Adv. Mr. G.S.Mani,Adv. Mr. Rajesh Maurya,Adv. Mr. Abhay Singh Yadav,Adv. Mr. Kunwar Siddartha,Adv. Mr. Ajay Singh,Adv. Mr. R. Sathish, AOR Mr. R.Anand,Adv. Mr. Nithin Saravanan,Adv. Ms. Arunima Singh,Adv. Ms. Priyadarshini,Adv. Mr. Ridhim Malhotra,adv. Ms. Manicka Priya Saravanan,Adv. Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, AOR Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B,Adv. Mr. Karuppaiah Meyyappan,Adv. Ms. Priya R,Adv. Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. K. Paari Vendhan, AOR Mr. Rahul Kaushik,Adv. Mr. Sanjay Visen,Adv. Mr. A.Rajarajan,Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen,Adv. Mr. Babita Mishra,Adv. Mr. Prabhu Ramasubramanian,Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B. Adv. Mr. G.Murugendran,Adv. Mr. Karuppaiah Meeyyappan,Adv. Ms. Priya R., Adv.
Table of Contents
2. State claims legislative competence and retrospective effect of 105th Amendment; Respondents argue lack of competence and invalidity of caste-based internal reservation without contemporaneous quantifiable data. (Para 16 , 24 , 26 , 27 )
3. The 105th Amendment is prospective; sub-classification is permissible; however, the 2021 Act relied on antiquated data and population as the sole criterion for classification. (Para 28 , 31 , 65 , 66 )
4. Internal reservation for backward classes requires a reasonable basis and contemporaneous quantifiable data; population alone cannot be the sole criterion for determining adequate representation. (Para 54 , 66 , 74 )
5. The 2021 Act is held unconstitutional for violating Articles 14, 15, and 16 due to unreasonable classification. (Para 77 , 79 )
6. Is the Constitution (One Hundred and Fifth Amendment) Act, 2021, clarificatory and retrospective in operation?
No. The court held that the 105th Amendment is prospective. Retrospectivity must be expressly specified by Parliament, and there was no such indication in the 105th Amendment Act. (Para 28 , 29 )
7. Does the State have legislative competence to provide internal reservation within the quota for backward classes?
Yes. The State can sub-classify and apportion reservation for communities already identified as backward classes. This is a permissible exercise of power and does not amount to identifying new socially and educationally backward classes. (Para 30 , 31 , 77 )
8. Does placing a statute in the Ninth Schedule under Article 31-B prevent the State from enacting ancillary legislation?
No. Article 31-B protects statutes from fundamental rights challenges but does not restrict the State's plenary legislative power to enact laws on matters ancillary to a protected statute. (Para 43 , 44 , 77 )
9. Can population be the sole basis for providing internal reservation to a specific community within backward classes?
No. While population is a relevant factor, adequate representation is not proportionate representation. Internal reservation must be based on reasonable criteria and contemporaneous quantifiable data, not population alone. (Para 66 , 74 , 77 )
10. Can caste be the sole basis for providing internal reservation?
No. Caste can be the starting point for identifying backward classes or providing internal reservation, but the State must justify the reasonableness and demonstrate that caste is not the sole basis. (Para 53 , 54 , 77 )
JUDGMENT :
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
1. 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 was declared as unconstitutional by the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench by a judgment dated 01.11.2021. The correctness of the said judgment is challenged in these appeals.
I. Background
2. Communal representation in public services existed in the Madras Presidency prior to the Constitution of India coming into force. The Madras High Court declared G.O. Ms. No. 3437 dated 21.11.1947, by which communal representation was provided, as unconstitutional.The said judgment of the High Court was upheld by this Court in State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan , 1951 SCR 525. This Court held that the classification made in the said G.O. proceeded on the basis of religion, race and caste and constituted a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 29(2) of the Constitution of India. On 18.06.1951, Article 15(4) was inserted by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, enabling the State to make any special provision for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. Consequent to the judgment of this Court, G.O. Ms. No. 2432 dated 27.09.1951 was issued by the Madras State adopting a 20-point roster, with three seats reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and five for Backward Classes, amounting to 15 per cent reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes together and 25 per cent for Backward Classes. On 30.12.1954, G.O. Ms. No. 2643 was issued increasing reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes combined to 16 per cent and Backward Classes to 25 per cent. By G.O. Ms. No. 353 dated 31.01.1957, the State Government made a sub-classification amongst Backward Classes. ‘Most Backward Communities’ were identified and educational concessions were extended to them. There were 58 communities in the list of ‘Most Backward Communities’, with Vanniakula Kshatriyas listed at serial No. 1.
3. The State Government appointed a Backward Class Commission under the Chairmanship of Shri A.N. Sattanathan, by G.O. Ms. No. 842 dated 13.11.1969 “to make a scientific and factual investigation of the conditions of backward classes in the State and recommend specific measures of relief for their advancement”. The Commission submitted its report in November, 1970, recommending reservation of 33 per cent of posts under the State Government for Backward Classes as well as of seats in professional and educational institutions. After considering the recommendations of the said Commission, the State Government, by G.O. Ms. No. 695 dated 07.06.1971, enhanced the existing reservation for Backward Classes from 25 per cent to 31 per cent and that for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from 16 per cent to 18 per cent with respect to seats in all kinds of educational institutions under Government, local body and aided managements and posts for recruitment to public services. On 01.02.1980, the reservation quota for Backward Classes was enhanced to 50 per cent for appointment to posts in services and admissions to educational institutions under the State Government.
4. Later, the Tamil Nadu Second Backward Classes Commission was appointed by the Government on 13.12.1982. The said Commission was headed by Shri J.A. Ambasankar, I.A.S. (retd.). A study was conducted by the Commission to determine the level of backwardness on the basis of various indicators of social and educational backwardness bearing points, with each community assessed being awarded a score from a total of 15 points. According to the Chairman, such of those communities which have secured 8, 9 and 10 points should be grouped as ‘A’, those with 11, 12 and 13 points should be placed in group ‘B’ and those with 14 and 15 points
