The Supreme Court confirmed on Thursday that the Vanniyakula Kshatriya community’s 10.5 percent internal reservation violates the fundamental rights of 115 other most backward communities (MBCs) and de-notified communities (DNCs) in Tamil Nadu to equality, non-discrimination, and equal opportunity.
The allocation of 10.5 percent reservation to a single community from the overall MBC quota of 20 percent in the State, leaving just 9.5 percent for 115 other communities in the MBC category, was found to be without “substantial basis” by a bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai.
Supreme Court cited Constitution
According to a 1994 Act protected under the Constitution’s Ninth Schedule, Tamil Nadu has 69 percent reservation. Backward classes, including Christians and Muslims, receive 30% of the 69 percent; MBCs receive 20%; Scheduled Castes receive 18%, and Scheduled Tribes receive 1%.
The AIADMK government, in consultation with Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission Chairperson Justice (retired) M. Thanikachalam, enacted the Special Reservation Act of 2021, which reserved 10.5 percent of the total 20 percent MBC quota for Vanniyakula Kshatriyas alone, citing their “extreme backwardness.”
‘Old data’ is a term used to describe information that is no longer valid
The Madras High Court’s determination that the community’s reservation under the 2021 Act was based on “antiquated facts” was maintained by the Supreme Court on Thursday. The decision strengthens the case for undertaking a caste survey to obtain the most up-to-date information on backwardness in the state.
The court stated that there was no prior study or analysis to support the notion that the Vanniyakula Kshatriyas were more backward than the other MBCs and DNCs prior to the 2021 Act.
“While caste can be a starting point for internal reservation,” the court said, “it is incumbent on the State government to establish the rationality of the choice [to award quota to a specific group] and demonstrate that caste is not the primary foundation.” The entire reason for the 2021 Act, according to Justice Rao, was a letter from Justice Thanikachalam requesting a proportion of the internal quota for the Vanniyakula Kshatriya community.
The court ruled that the State government erred by rejecting other members of the Commission’s concerns about the “lack of current caste-based statistics.” They had warned that without the most recent caste-based information, internal reservations could not be “fruitfully made.”
The court remarked that “Justice Thanikachalam’s letter does not relate to any analysis or assessment of the relative backwardness or representation of the communities within the MBCs and DNCs.” “The main basis for suggesting internal reservation for Vanniyakula Kshatriya was made population,” it added, “which is directly in contravention of the law handed down by this court.”
The Supreme Court ruled that the 2021 Act was “beyond the pale” of the Constitution. It did not, however, pronounce on the merits of the 1994 Act, which provides for 69 percent reservation in the state notwithstanding a quota ceiling of 50 percent.
The court affirmed the State’s legislative competence to adopt a law sub-classifying and apportioning percentages within defined backward classes, although finding the 2021 Act and its percentages of reservation unlawful. “Sub-classification among backward classes is not prohibited,” Justice Rao observed.
Legislation that is not part of the main legislation
The Supreme court also determined that the 2021 Act was solely supplemental to the 1994 Act and did not conflict with it.
“The objective of the 2021 Act, which is to detail the degree of reservation for groups already classified as MBCs/DNCs, cannot be considered to be in conflict with the 1994 Act,” Justice Rao reasoned. The Supreme Court ruled that putting the 1994 Act in the Ninth Schedule cannot be used as a “barrier” to the State legislature enacting laws on topics unrelated to the 1994 Act.