BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Duraiswamy, K. Murali Shankar, JJ.
V.V. Saminathan – Petitioner
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Chief Secretary, Chennai & Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 15679, 6594, 7836, 10670, 7765, 7848, 11011, 17286, 7632, 7644, 6878, 9508, 13688, 17984, 19064, 5642, 14211, 6011, 6179, 6429, 7412, 7455 of 2021 & W.P(MD)Nos. 6619, 6758, 4877, 5762, 7869, 5182, 5207, 5615, 17956, 18205, 6202, 6616, 7537 of 2021
Decided On : 01-11-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4), 14, 46, 200, 340, 367, 226 - General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 21 - Constitution (105th Amendment) Act, 2021 - Section 2 - Collection of Statistical Act, 2008 - Sections 3 and 28 - Assent of Bills - Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections - Power to issue, to include power to add to, amend - Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Declaration declaring Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2021 providing ex-orbital and exclusive reservation to vanniyar community to an extent of 10.5% without adequate quantifiable data is illegal and unconstitutional to the principals laid down in Maratha case in Civil Appeal and Constitutional 102 amendment and consequently forbearing respondent from in any manner implementing reservation in matters of education and employment in Government, quasi Government institutions in State of Tamil Nadu provided under impugned Act - Whether State Legislature has competency to make impugned Act after 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018 and before 105th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021 - Whether an Act placed under Ninth Schedule of Constitution of India can be varied without amending said Act - Whether State Government had the power to take any decision with regard to Backward Classes in teeth of Constitutional provisions, more particularly, Article 338-B of Constitution of India - Whether State has power to provide reservation based on caste - Whether impugned enactment is within legislative competence of State Legislature – Held, degree of backwardness of classes are not measured and the very basis of classification is name of caste, which is a clear case treating equals unequally and resulting in reverse discrimination within Most Backward Classes - If State decides to sub-classify, it must be based on objective measurable criteria and not to divide caste with socially and educationally into different classes and same is not permissible under law – Court conclude that there is no data much less quantifiable data available with State Government before introduction of impugned Act, to show three different degree of backwardness to make three sub-categories as mandated by Indra Sawhney case (supra) nor there is a data to show inadequate representation of a group - Court hold that impugned enactment has been passed by the State without any quantifiable data on population, socio educational status and representation of backward classes in services and sub-classification done by virtue of impugned Act solely based on population data, in absence of any objective criteria, is illegal in eye of law and in violation of Constitution of India - Writ Petitions are dismissed.
ORDER :
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Declaration declaring the Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2021 providing ex-orbital and exclusive reservation to vanniyar community to an extent of 10.5% without adequate quantifiable data is illegal and unconstitutional to the principals laid down in Maratha case in Civil Appeal No.3123 of 2020, dated 09.09.2020 (2020 SCC ONLINE SC 727) and Constitutional 102 amendment and consequently forbearing the respondent from in any manner implementing the reservation in the matters of education and employment in Government, quasi Government institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu provided under the impugned Act.)
[THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING/HYBRID MODE]
These writ petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of Act 8 of 2021, dated 26.02.2021, namely, 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 and hence, they are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by this common order.
FACTS :
2. Background facts leading to the filing of the present writ petitions, as culled out from the affidavits filed in support thereof, could be briefly narrated thus:
2.1. In the State of Tamil Nadu, the caste based communal reservation was provided ever since 1921. After implementation of the Constitution of India with effect from 26.01.1950, the said caste based reservation was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Madras Vs Champakam Dorairajan reported in AIR 1951 Supreme Court 226 and the Honourable Supreme Court has quashed the caste based reservation holding that only class based reservation is permissible and since then only class based reservation is followed both in the Central and State Governments.
2.2. 50% reservation was provided to the Backward Class till 1989. Thereafter, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.242, Backward Classes Welfare Department, Nutritious Meal Programme and Social Welfare Department, dated 28.03.1989, the reservation for Backward Classes was divided into two categories by giving vertical reservation of 30% to Backward Classes with 132 castes and 20% to Most Backward Classes/De-notified Communities with 109 castes (now 116 castes including Vanniyar Caste).
2.3.The first Backward Classes Commission which was set up by a Presidential Order under Article 340 of the Constitution of India on 29.01.1953, submitted its report on 30.03.1955 and the said Commission prepared a list of 2399 Backward Castes out of which 837 were classified as Most Backward.
2.4. In 1969, the Government of Tamil Nadu appointed the First Backward Classes Commission, vide G.O.Ms.No.842, Social Welfare Department, dated 13.11.1969, under the Chairmanship of A.N.Sattanathan and it gave its report in November 1970 and its recommendations were as follows:
b. 33% of the posts under the State Government should be reserved for the candidates of OBC.
c. The above reservations should be followed in respect of admissions to various professional and technical institutions also.
d. Various educational concessions and special coaching facilities should be provided to students of Other Backward Classes.”
2.5. The State Government has enhanced the reservation quota for OBCs from 31% to 50% from 24.01.1980 both in Government services and in Educational Institutions and this is in addition to the quota of 18% reserved for SCs and STs.
2.6. The Second Backward Classes Commission was constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu in the year 1982, vide G.O.Ms.No.3078, Social Welfare Department, dated 13.12.1982,
Ashoka Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India and others
B.K.Bavithra and others Vs. Union of India and others
D.S.Nakara and others Vs. Union of India
Dr.Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Minister and another
E.V.Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India
Indra Sawney and Union of India & Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar & Ors.
Jarnail Singh and Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others
K.C.Vasanth Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka
M.Nagaraj & Others Vs. Union of India and others
Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer
S.Panneer Selvam and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
S.V.Joshi and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others
Sub-classification within Scheduled Castes for affirmative action is constitutionally permissible if it meets the intelligible differentia test and doesn't exclude any caste from benefits, overruling....
(1) When Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney held that 50% is upper limit of reservation under Article 16(4), it is law which is binding under Article 141 and to be implemented. When law is laid down....
Promotions for SC/ST candidates against unreserved vacancies require quantifiable data proving inadequacy of representation, and any related clarifications issued without such data are unconstitution....
The court upheld the Haryana Backward Classes Act, affirming that legislative actions must be backed by periodic verification of 'backwardness' to ensure compliance with constitutional mandates.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.