Read Time: 08 minutes

The Madras High Court today refused to stay the implementation of a law of the Tamil Nadu Government giving 10.5% internal reservation for Vanniyars within 20% quota allocated to Most Backward Castes (MBCs) in government jobs and educational institutions. 

However, the court through an interim order held that the admissions/appointments under the law will be subject to the final order in the matter.

The division bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Justice S. Kannammal has fixed the matter for final hearing on Sep 14, 2021.

The Bench also clarified that it will be well open to the court to pass appropriate order on the admissions/appointments made in the interregnum.

A batch of petitions was filed challenging the constitutionality of the Tamil Nadu Government Law. In today’s hearing, the petitioners were seeking an interim order for stay or injunction.

The petitions seeking the interim order of stay have been dismissed.

Averments of the Parties

Seeking the interim stay, the counsels for the petitioners, including Sr. Adv. K.M. Vijayan, argued that as held by the Apex Court, the constitutional court is not denuded of the power consider granting appropriate interim order when the challenge has been made to the constitutionality of an Act.

However, Adv. Gen. (AG) R. Shunmugasundaram appearing for the State argued that as the matter is sub-judice in Supreme Court, the High Court should refrain from passing any interim order staying the implementation of the Law. He urged the court to take up the matter for final hearing after a week.

The AG mentioned that there are three civil writ petitions having the same subject matter are pending before the Apex Court which has refrained itself from passing an interim order for stay.

To this, counsels for petitioners contended that mere pendency of the writ petitions before the Supreme Court and its withholding the interim order does not take away the right of the writ petitioners to seek interim order before the High Court.

Yesterday, the division bench granted a day’s time to the State to respond, as to why it should not the pass interim orders to stay the enactment of the Law as the government counsel requested the court to grant a short adjournment to enable the appearance of Advocate General R. Shunmugasundaram, who was absent.

The State government has already gone all out in support of the law, which was passed by the Legislative Assembly, just hours before the model code of conduct came into force in the State in February this year.

The Government has said that in a democratic polity, an elected government cannot be barred from exercise of its power to make a policy to legislate any law during its tenure/until the last minute it holds power, to meet the public opinion at large.

In 2010, a writ petition was filed by one C.N. Ramamurthy seeking internal reservation. Thereafter, the process of consultation for sub-classification within the 20% earmarked for MBCs began on June 13, 2012 when the then chairman of Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission recommended 10.5% reservation for the Vanniakula Khastriya (including Vanniar, Vanniya, Vannia Gounder, Gounder or Kander, Padayachi, Palli and Agnikula Kshatriya) community.

However, the members of the BC Commission in 2013 had dissented with the recommendation.

The State Government, passed the law even before submission of a report by a Commission constituted on December 21, 2020 under the chairmanship of retired High Court judge A. Kulasekaran to collect quantifiable data on castes, communities and tribes in the State within six months. The Government argued that such report was not submitted within due time.

(Case Title: A batch of petitions including V. V. Saminathan v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu And 4 Others.)

Edited by Shreya Agarwal