Read Time: 08 minutes
Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to refer the Vanniyar community reservation matter to a larger bench. The court was hearing the petition 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 Tamil Nadu Government, unconstitutional.
A bench of Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai noted, "the parties may continue arguing on merits as we have refused to consider the argument of placing the matter before a larger bench."
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 on separate list.
In addition to this Singhvi further pointed out that "4 reports which has consistently said that these casts, these classes are the most backward classes. It is on the basis of the census. Reports are:
Further arguing over the issue of Presidential assent, Singhvi submitted that the 94 Act which has stood the test of time has simply been delineated by the Act of 21. "Power I undoubtedly have," Singhvi added.
Additionally, Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appearing for Tamil Nadu also stated that article 31B is not prescribing any particular law to make any legislation. "How the state is claiming the protection under 31C js that there was a presidential assent," he added.
Furthermore, Senior Advocate Rao appearing for Pattali Makkal Katchi (the petitioner) averred that "the judgment in the Indira Sahani case approves classification; the question is whether the state has competence to make amendment under the 102nd Amendment."
Rao further said that "they are the gravediggers, such community given a small reservation cannot be a subject of attack by the other backward communities."
"No community is before your Lordships saying that the Vanniyar community is not a backward community," he also added.
Lastly, while concluding his arguments Rao said that "the reservation is made on the basis of quantifiable data, it is not excessive, no community has complaint there for my submissions are correct and the High Court has not considered these aspects."
Now, Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan will continue with his arguments on February 22, 2022.
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
Please Login or Register
