Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2002 Supreme(Mad) 1274

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, THE HONOURABLE MR. Justice V.S. SIRPURKAR, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. JAYASIMHA BABU, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. DINAKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN
M.Aarthi (Minor) And Others - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Tamil Nadu And Others - Respondents
W.A. No.3221 of 2002
Decided On : 01 November 2002

Advocates Appeared: For the Appellant:Mr. R. Gandhi, Sr. Counsel for Mr. R.G. Narendhiran, Mr. V. Prakash, Mr. C. Selvaraju. For the Respondents 1 to 3:Mr. N.R. Chandran,Advocate General, Mr. V. Raghupathi, Govt. Pleader, Mr. V.R. Rajasekaran, Spl. Govt. Pleader, 4:Mr. V. Bhiman, Advocate, 5: Mr. K. Chandru, Sr. Counsel, 6 to 9 :Mr. V.K. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate, 6:Mr. S. Sathyamoorthy, Advocate.

Allocation of seats in admission for children born of intercaste marriage is unconstitutional.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Articles 15 (1) and 14(1)-Allocation of seats for children born of intercaste marriage in the admission to medical college held unconstitutional.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court held that the allocation of 12 seats for children born of inter-caste marriage is unconstitutional and directed redistribution among OC, BC, MBC/Denotified Communities, SC/ST in specified ratios (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment discusses whether the special category is traceable to Article 15(4) or Article 15(1) and concludes it is traceable to Article 15(4) (socially and educationally backward classes) and that Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994 exhausted the executive power once such reservation was enacted (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Court affirms the validity of the special category for the academic year 2002-03, citing prior binding decisions (Hari Ganesh, Sona Rajan) but ultimately finds the 12-seat provision unconstitutional and remits to distribution (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The majority emphasizes that inter-caste marriage as a policy supports social equality but must be reconciled with constitutional provisions and prior exhaustive legislative action; it notes the State cannot rely on Article 162 when power is exhausted by legislation (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The interim stay and urgency considerations are acknowledged; admissions for the current year proceeded under binding prior decisions but the 12-seat special category is set aside in terms of allocation for that year (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment lists 15 special categories and confirms the total 71 seats reserved across categories; however, only the inter-caste marriage category is directly addressed in terms of validity for 2002-03 (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court upholds the general framework of reservation under Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) while cautioning about creating further special categories beyond those already enacted (!) (!) (!) .

What is the legality of allocating 12 seats for children born of inter-caste marriages under Clause 13(viii) of the Prospectus?

What is the appropriate basis for special reservations in Tamil Nadu medical admissions under Articles 15(1), 15(4), and 14, in light of precedents like Hari Ganesh, Sona Rajan, and Indra Sawhney?

What is the remedy or direction regarding the allocation of the 12 inter-caste category seats and its impact on merit-based admissions for the academic year 2002-03?

Judgment :-

THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE:

This Writ Appeal and Writ Petitions raise an important question relating to the entitlement of separate reservation for the children of inter-caste marriage under special category other than the reserved categories.

2. W.A. No.3221 of 2002 arises out of the judgment rendered on 3.9.2002 in W.P. No.33838 of 2002. Because of the stay granted by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.23616 of 2002, no relief could be granted by the learned single Judge and as such, the writ appeal has been filed.

3. Ms. P. Sakthipriya, a minor represented by her father and natural guardian Pechimuthu, has filed W.P. Nos.23615 and 23616 of 2002.

(a) In W.P. No.23615 of 2002, the prayer is to declare that Item 10 of clause 4.4. of the Prospectus for Admission into B.E./B.Tech/B.Arch course is to be interpreted as meaning equal opportunity for the various categories mentioned therein and preference to be given when marks are equal on the basis of merit consequent to such direction, direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's case based on such interpretation and issue such further or other orders or directions as this Court may deem fit.

(b) In W.P. No.23616 of 2002, the relief sought for is to declare that sub-clause (viii) of Clause 13 of the Prospectus for Admission into M.B.B.S./B.D.S course is to be interpreted as meaning equal opportunity for the various categories mentioned therein and preference to be given when marks are equal on the basis of merit consequent to such direction, direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's case based on such interpretation and issue such further or other orders or directions as this Court may deem fit.

4. In W.P. No.33272 of 2002, the relief sought for is to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Prospectus of M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Admissions 2002 - 2003 of the second respondent and quash the Clause (viii) of Para 13 and direct the respondents to select the petitioner under the Special Category for the children of inter-caste marriage people without any order of preference and on merits.

5. (a) W.P.M.P. No.46329 of 2002 in W.P. No.23616 of 2002, has been filed by one C. Socrates seeking impleadment and the same was ordered on 5.8.2002.

(b) W.P. M.P. No. 50036 of 2002 in W.P. No.23616 of 2002 has been filed by one Sumitha seeking impleadment and the same was ordered on 5.9.2002.

(c) W.P.M.P. No.55683 of 2002 in W.P. No.23616 of 2002, has been filed by one V. Barathvajan seeking impleadment and the same was ordered on 31.10.2002.

(d) W.P.M.P. No.59679 of 2002 in W.P. No.23616 of 2002, has been filed by G. Kalyani, K. Majnu, D. Kanimozhi and Satish Kumar seeking impleadment and the same was ordered on 31.10.2002.

6. By order dated 3.7.2002, an injunction has been granted regarding the selection on the basis of preferential reservation pursuant to Item (viii) of Clause 13 of Prospectus of Tamil Nadu M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Admission 2002 - 2003 as also regarding the similar provision relating to Engineering admissions. Petitions to vacate the same have been filed and they came up for hearing on 26.9.2002. But the injunction order was not vacated. Learned Government Pleader brought to the notice of the Court the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in S. HARI GANESH v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (AIR 1987 Madras 55) and a Full Bench of this Court in M. SONA RAJAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (1999 (II) CTC 1) and submitted that the matter is no more res integra in view of the aforementioned decisions and that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as being covered by the aforesaid decisions. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the ratio laid down in the said decisions is incorrect and the same need to be reconsidered. A Full Bench judgment in MINOR S. MUTHU SENTHIL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2002 (1) C.T.C. 385) was also brought to the notice of the Court, which dealt with a matter of reservation traceable to A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document