Read Time: 13 minutes

While holding that Vanniyar Reservation Act 2021 is ultra vires under the Article 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has remarked that in order to differentiate a particular class/category from others, there should be a substantial distinction which clearly demarcates that class / category.

"In the instant case, we see no justification for how the Vanniakula Kshatriyas can be treated as a different class and meted out preferential treatment, being one amongst the 116 communities, who have all been considered on the same footing till the enactment of the 2021 Act and were, therefore, eligible to claim the benefit of undivided 20 per cent reservation", held a bench of Justices L Nageshwar Rao and BR Gavai.

Population cited as the sole factor to support such classification was further held to be in the teeth of the judgments in Indra Sawhney and Jarnail Singh.

A batch of petitions were filed before the Supreme Court 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.

The top court held that the State has committed an error in adopting the report of the Janarthanam Commission.

Referring to the Backward Classes Commission consisting of 7 members, the top court noted that except its Chairman, Justice Janarthanam, all other members had expressed their concern that adequate time was not given to them to deliberate on an important issue relating to internal reservation. It was pointed out by the majority in their report that as on 2011-12, updated caste-based statistics were not furnished to them.

Justice Janarthanam in his report was found to have relied upon the population figures of the Vanniakula Kshatriyas from the year 1985.

"The views of the plurality, i.e., the remaining six members of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission were contrary to the views expressed by Justice Janarthanam. The majority opinion clearly mentioned that the data that was available before them was outdated. They highlighted the importance of collection of caste-wise data to enable them to give an opinion on internal reservation. That apart, the majority members expressed the inappropriateness of submitting the report in haste, just before the ensuing parliamentary elections in 2012....", noted the Top Court.

It was further found that Justice Thanikachalam, who was later made the Chairman of the Commission, blindly followed the recommendation of Justice Janarthanam, by stating that his view is unassailable.

"It is to be noted that the recommendation of internal reservation for the Vannikula Kshatriyas is by way of a letter signed only by Justice Thanikachalam and does not enclose the views of the remaining members of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission...", the bench noted.

Providing internal reservation of 10.5 per cent from the 20 per cent made available to More Backward Classes (MBCs) and Denotified Communities (DNCs) would definitely be to the detriment of other communities, in the absence of any exercise undertaken or any findings arrived at to demonstrate that members of the Vanniakula Kshatriya community are unable to compete with the remaining communities within the MBCs and DNCs, said the bench.

The court was further of the opinion that percentage of population of the Vanniakula Kshatriyas proportionate to the total population of the MBCs and DNCs could not be the sole criterion for providing internal reservation.

"Adequacy of representation is different from proportionate representation, although proportion of population of the relevant community to the total population may be one of the relevant factors in determining adequacy", it said.

"Is the State right in contending that the classification of the Vanniakula Kshatriyas made by the 2021 Act for separate reservation is reasonable?" further questioned the bench.

To this, it answered by stating that in the absence of any rationale for treating the Vanniakula Kshatriyas differently, the differentiation and allocation of percentages was entirely arbitrary and fell foul of Article 14.

Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation, and there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject matter of the legislation their position is substantially the same, held the Court.

Referring to the doctrine of classification, the Court said,

"Those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment. Equality is amongst equals. Classification is, therefore, to be founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the groups and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved."

Noting that the object of the 2021 Act was to achieve equitable distribution of the benefit of 20 per cent reservation provided to MBCs and DNCs, the Court said,

"....116 castes were to be found in the cumulative lists of MBCs and DNCs. Choosing a particular caste and providing a special reservation of 10.5 per cent out of the 20 per cent to such caste is discriminatory, in the absence of any sound differentiation from communities who are similarly situated and were, therefore, grouped together for the purposes of receiving the benefits of 20 per cent reservation."

Consultation of the National Commission for Backward Classes:

Since providing internal reservation is a major policy matter, which should have been undertaken by the State only with the consultation of the National Commission for Backward Classes, and as admittedly, there was no consultation, the 2021 Act was held to be void. 

The bench in this regard relied on Article 338- B(9) which provides that the Union and the State Government shall consult the Commission on all major policy matters affecting the SEBCs.

While holding the requirement of consultation with an expert constitutional body to be mandatory, the Court clarified that non-consultation by the State Government with the National Commission would not take away the competence of the State Government to enact the 2021 Act.

"Article 338- B(9) does not stop the State from enacting a legislation in furtherance of a major policy matter but states that the State Government shall consult the Commission on such matters", it remarked.

Case Title: PATTALI MAKKAL KATCHI vs. A. MAYILERUMPERUMAL & ORS.