The main legal point established in the judgment is that rural reservation provided by the Government had no nexus to the object to be achieved and failed to justify the discrimination, thus infringing Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

B. Subhashan Reddy, CJ.

1. At issue is the constitutionality of the Governmental action in providing rural reservation for admission to professional courses conducted by the Government and self-financing colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu.

2. Excepting W.P. No.16595 of 2001 and W.A. No.2624 of 2001 arising therefrom, which relate to admission to law course, all other writ petitions relate to medical admission. The genesis for this litigation is G.O.No.603 (Education), dated 30.8.1996, by which a high level committee was appointed to review the standard of education, basic facilities etc. The high level committee had recommended to the Government to reserve 15% of the seats for the students studying in panchayat schools in rural areas. The premise on which such recommendation was made is said to be the disparity in opportunity in securing admissions to professional courses between the students studying in the schools located in rural areas as compared to that of urban areas. According to the high level committee, the students of rural areas were at disadvantaged position than their counter-parts in urban areas. Firstly, such facility of special reservation was made available to engineering students in G.O. Ms.No.261. By G.O. (Rt) No.600, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 5.12.1997, the same was extended even for medical students. Later, it was extended to law course also. The above special reservation of 15% to rural students was increased to 25% by G.O.Ms.No.171, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 6.6.2001 for M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. courses and so far as the law course is concerned, it was by G.O.Ms.No.35, Law Department, dated 12.7.2001. In some matters, only the escalation of special reservation from 15% to 25% is challenged while in other cases, the scheme of special reservation itself is under challenge.

3. When the matters came up for hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the Government that the lis is no more res integra in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Navarasam Matriculation Higher Secondary School - Parents Teachers Association v. State of Tamil Nadu , 1998 (2) C.T.C. 129. It was also brought to our notice that the said judgment of the Division Bench was followed by a learned single Judge of this Court in A. Naufal Rizwan v. State of Tamil Nadu , 1999 (3) C.T.C. 253. On behalf of the petitioners, the judgment in Radhey Shyam Singh v. Union of India , 1997 (1) S.C.C. 60, was cited. The Division Bench having considered the contentions advanced on either side, was of the considered view that the matter should be referred to the Full Bench and order of reference to that effect was passed on 30.11.2001 and that is how the Full Bench heard the matters.

4. On behalf of the petitioners, the arguments were led by learned counsel M/s. Karuppan, C. Selvaraj, Paul Vasanthakumar and Ms. Radha Gopalan. Other learned counsel adopted their arguments. On behalf of the Government, Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Additional Advocate General, has countered the petitioners’ arguments.

5. The question of providing reservation - be it in educational institution or public employment - had been the subject matter of controversy since inception. Whether reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be provided castewise and even if the said categories could be provided reservation castewise, can that castewise consideration be extended to backward class, was the subject matter of debate and adjudication in several landmark judgments rendered by the Supreme Court. Elucidation of the said judicial precedents is not necessary for this adjudication. But all such aspects relating to reservation and particularly, relating to reservation to backward, classes were considered by a nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawney v. Union of India , AIR 1993 S.C. 477. The aspects of reservation under Article 15 (4) as also Article 16 (4) of the Constitution were considered comprehensi