A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao on Wednesday decided not to refer to a larger Bench a slew of petitions, including multiple ones by Tamil Nadu, regarding the validity of a State law granting reservation to Vanniyars, a most backward community.
The Bench, also comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, said it has referred to several precedents on the point of reference and has resolved to go ahead and hear the case on merits.
The two-judge Bench is hearing a challenge to a Madras High Court decision in November 2021, declaring ultra vires the law which provided 10.5% special reservation to Vanniyars.
Extensive arguments
On Tuesday, Justice Rao's Bench said it would first deal with the question of reference to a larger Bench. It had heard extensive arguments from the parties on the reference before adjourning the matter to February 16.
However, the Bench, as soon as the hearing began, conveyed to the parties its determination to hear the case finally on merits and called on them to make their submissions.
Tamil Nadu, which is represented by a battery of lawyers including senior advocates A.M. Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi, P. Wilson, Mukul Rohatgi and advocate D. Kumanan, submitted that the Madras High Court order was based on an erroneous view that State had no legislative competence.
The government said Tamil Nadu had been a "pioneer State with regard to grant of reservation". The State argued that the Most Backward Classes within the Backward Classes were identified in Tamil Nadu as early as in 1957, when they were considered equivalent to the Scheduled Castes but without the factor of untouchability. It said some of these communities were impacted by the criminal tribes' laws of the British and enlisted as the Most Backward Classes. The recommendation for 10.5% reservation to the Vanniyakula Kshatriya was made in commensuration with their population as enumerated in a survey held in 1983 by the Tamil Nadu Second Backward Classes Commission.
"The State had enacted the Act in 2021 only based on adequate authenticated data on population of the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities enumerated by the Tamil Nadu Second Backward Classes Commission in 1983," the government contended.
Tamil Nadu said the castewise population data disclosed by the Commission was the "only authenticated data available as of now before the State; and such data can be used effectively to plan for sub-classification within Backward Classes of citizens".
Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), whose push had influenced the law's enactment in February last year, made a strong pitch for the validity of the State law. Senior advocate M.N. Rao and advocate K. Balu said the quota was based on quantifiable data. The reservation was not excessive and no other backward community has complained. The condition of the community deserved quota for its uplift.
As per the last available census, the Vanniyars constitute 13.5% of the population in the State. Quota given only up to 10.5%, Mr. Rao submitted.
Plenary power to make legislation
Senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, for P.M.K founder S. Ramadoss, argued that the State legislature has the plenary power to make the legislation.
Mr. Vaidyanathan argued that the 102nd Constitutional Amendment did not take away the right of the State legislature to make the law.
The 102nd Amendment Act of 2018 gave the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) constitutional validity. It allowed the President to notify the list of socially and educationally backward classes (SEBC) for any State or Union Territory. The subsequent 105th Constitutional Amendment restored the power to identify and specify SEBCs to the States.
The State government had earlier argued that the 2021 Act giving Vanniyar quota was linked to the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institution and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act. This law, which led to 69% reservation in Tamil Nadu, was brought under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.
Article 31B of the Constitution states that none of the Acts that are included under the Ninth Schedule “shall be deemed to be void, or ever to have become void... notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary".
The government said since the 2021 Act did not require the President's assent as it came within the ambit of the 1994 Act, which was protected under the Ninth Schedule.
The court scheduled the next hearing on February 22.
