Read Time: 10 minutes

Senior Advocate Radhakrishnan appearing for the petitioner S Ramadoss in a connected matter to the Vanniyar reservation issue submitted that adverting to the impugned judgment, in the given situation, it is justifiable what the legislation has done. Equality of opportunity allows discrimination with reason.

A bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai has asked the counsel to conclude their arguments by tomorrow.

The bench was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Madras High Court judgment which had declared the 10.5% internal reservation to the Vanniyar community under the existing 20% reservation to Most Backward Classes by the Tamil Nadu Government, unconstitutional.

Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Barium Chemicals Radhakrishnan submitted, "I'm challenging the impugned judgment, erroneous conclusions have been derived and assumptions have been made that there is no data."

In addition to this Senior Advocate P Willson appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu placed before the bench that the reservation allowed to the community is justified as in the Sattanathan Commission basic data used was census data. "We want to show the extensive assessment done in the Sattanathan Commission for the implementation of reservation," Wilson added.

Referring to the Amba Shankar report Wilson stated that "so far as the sub-classification is concerned, they wanted to find so far as the 20% reservation given, However, The majority of the members of the report have not mentioned the methodology adopted."

Wilson added that the suggestion of the Chairman was followed, however, the bench raised the issue that when 7 members of the committee don't agree with the Chairman how can the State rely on such a report. "How can a commission unanimously decide" the bench added.

To which, Wilson responded by stating that the whole report was with the government, the suggestions of the Chairman, and the dissenting arguments of the other members.

After the conclusion of arguments of counsels appearing for petitioners, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing for the respondents stated that in this case there was no consultation with the National Commission for Backward Classes, which is a mandate in the constitution. "There was no legislative competence to enact this legislation, the whole act falls to the ground as ultra vires" Sankaranarayanan added.

Sankaranarayanan arguing that the legislation was brought in on the ground of the 105th amendment being retrospective stated that "The only test to decide if one is retrospective, if the words say so, and if the provision refers to a prior date and neither of those is in the 105th Amendment." 

It was further added that "If this kind of measure is allowed, every major principle laid down will be clarified by the Parliament, we are opening the door for them to clarify. They will tell us what the law is."

Earlier, the Supreme Court had refused to refer the Vanniyar community reservation matter to a larger bench. Whereas, continuing arguments on merit Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi was appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu during the hearing. He submitted that the legislative intent of the 102nd amendment is to clarify that the State and Union Territories may continue to have their own separate list.

Background:

A Madras High Court bench of Justices M. Duraisamy and Muralishankar while holding Tamil Nadu government’s law stipulating 10.5% internal reservation for Vanniyars within 20% quota allocated to Most Backward Castes (MBCs) in government jobs and educational institutions as unconstitutional has noted that it is an arbitrary micro classification.

The batch of petitions challenging the law was earlier listed before a bench of Justice MM Sundaresh (prior to his elevation to the Supreme Court) and Justice Kannamal.

The petitioners contended that after the insertion of the 102nd Amendment to the Constitution of India, the State Government has no power to identify/classify any community as Backward and it is the sole domain of the Parliament and hence, the impugned Act is in violation of the Articles 338-B and 342-A of the Constitution of India. Further, the appropriate authority to notify a caste will be the National Commission for Backward Classes which is Constitutional Body under Article 333-B of the Constitution of India, under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

It was further contended that Article 340 of the Constitution specifically provides that the President may, by order, appoint a Commission consisting of such persons as he thinks fit to investigate the conditions of Socially and educationally Backward Classes(SEBC) within the territory of India and the difficulties under which they work and make recommendations as to the steps that should be taken by the Union or any State to remove such difficulties. The State of Tamil Nadu has granted internal reservation of 10.5% out of 20% for Vanniyar Community alone. This is over 50% earmarked for MBC. In addition, the classification made on a particular premise of offering a larger slot to Vanniyars in MBC, is not in accordance with law.

Case Title: Pattali Makkal Katchi & Ors. Vs Mayileruperumal