Madras High Court strikes down 10.5 percent reservation for Vanniyar community

The Madras High Court on Monday struck down the law enacted by Tamil Nadu government providing 10.5 percent reservation in educational institutions and government jobs to Vanniyar caste (VV Saminathan v. Government of Tamil Nadu and ors)..A Bench of Justices M Duraiswamy and K Murali Shankar struck down the "Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of seats in educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and appointments or posts in the services under the State within the Reservation for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021” providing an internal reservation of 10.5 percent for Vanniyar community within the 20 percent quota for all Most Backward Classes (MBCs) and Denotified Communities (DNCs).The special law stated that it was brought to meet the demand of Vanniyars, a caste of MBC and based on claims that they are numerically predominant community but is unable to compete with the other communities in the MBC/DNC category..The Court ruled that the law was passed without any quantifiable data on the socio-educational status of the Vanniyars in the services and there was no objective criteria for sub-classifying Vanniyars.“The enactment has been passed by the State without any quantifiable data on population, socio-educational status and representation of the backward classes in the services and the sub-classification done by virtue of the impugned Act solely based on population data, in the absence of any objective criteria, is illegal in the eye of law and in violation of the Constitution of India,” the judgment said..The Court also noted that if Vanniyar caste is given 10.5 percent reservation out of the 20 percent earmarked in total for MBCs, the remaining 115 MBCs will get only 9.5 percent share."It is also pertinent to observe that that for considering 10.5% reservation for Vanniyar caste under Most Backward Community reservation, the Government has not considered the caste wise population and there is no data available with the Government to invoke the enabling provision in the Constitution to provide internal reservation. There is nothing on record to establish that the State Government had deliberations with all the stakeholders, especially, those Communities who would be affected by the impugned Act," the judgment said..The law was introduced during the rule of the All India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) earlier this year. It was passed in the legislative assembly in February this year.After the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party was elected to form the next government following the Assembly elections last April, a Government Order (GO) was also passed in July by the Chief Minister MK Stalin-led DMK regime to implement the Vanniyar reservation retrospectively from February 26. 2021.At least 35 writ petitions were filed before the Madras High Court by persons belonging to other MBCs, challenging the Act and the decision of the State government to give preference Vanniyar community by sub-classifying them.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 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 a Constitutional Body under Article 333-B of the Constitution of India, under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. Article 340 of the Constitution of India specifically provided 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 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. However, the State Government without waiting for the recommendations of the Commission has passed the Act without consultations or deliberations with all the stakeholders, especially, those communities who would be affected by the Act.Besides, it was contended that the State of Tamil Nadu has granted internal reservation of 10.5 percent out of 20 percent for Vanniyar community alone. This is over 50 percent earmarked for MBC. In addition, the classification made on a particular premise of offering a larger slot to Vanniyars in MBC, is bad. There cannot be a preferential treatment from among the same class, it was submitted.Further, the petitions argued that without there being any census, the Government of Tamil passed a Bill for reservation for Vanniyar community 10.5 percent under MBC without considering caste wise population and there is no data available with the State government to invoke the enabling provisions in the Constitution to provide internal reservation.The State government in its response submitted that the process of consultation for sub-classification within the MBCs was started as early in the year 2012, when the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission was issued with additional Terms of Reference for this purpose.The government has been thoroughly examining the feasibility of sub-classification for several years before coming up with a policy of passing the Act, it was pointed out. Pertinently, it was submitted that the law was enacted only based on adequate authenticated data on population of the MBCs and DNCs enumerated by the Tamil Nadu Second Backward Classes Commission in the year 1983."The Ambasankar Commission submitted its report to the Government in 1985, after carrying out 100% door-to-door enumeration of entire population of the State. The caste-wise population data disclosed by the Ambasankar Commission is 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 in proportion to the respective communities or groups," the counter affidavit filed by the State said. .The Court after examining the rival contentions concluded that the law discriminates only on caste and it also provides caste based reservation by treating one caste, viz., “Vanniakula Kshatriya” including 'Vanniyar', 'Vanniya', 'Vannia Gounder', 'Gounder' or 'Kander', 'Padayachi', 'Palli' and 'Agnikula Kshatriya', as separate class while treating the similar castes differently.The Court underscored that reservation cannot be based only on caste as held by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. By doing so, the respondents have shown discrimination between one caste having 6 sub-castes and 115 other castes, as the Act tried to give higher proportion of reservation to one caste and deprive the others.."Articles 15(4), 16(4) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, prohibit reservation on caste basis. Reservation can only be on the basis of the community and not on the basis of the caste. We also find that none of the remaining 115 Communities was given separate reservation, as it has been done in the case of Vanniyar caste. It is also pertinent to note that no caste basis reservation has been given in respect of any of the communities enlisted under the Notification," the Court ruled.Importantly, the Court held that the State government was not competent to the pass the law since after the 102nd amendment the State has no power to notify Socially Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC)."We find that by virtue of 102nd Constitutional Amendment, the powers of Legislative Assembly to include and exclude Backward Class has been ousted and bestowed with Parliament of India under Article 342-A of the Constitution of India..the State Legislature has no power to enact such legislation and accordingly, the State Legislature has no competency to pass the Act," the Bench held.Further, it was contended by the petitioners that in view of Article 31-B of the Constitution of India, the State Legislature has no power to enact the Act without amending the Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994, which has been given Presidential Assent and placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India and the enactment of the present Act is in violation of the Constitution of India.The Court accepted the argument stating that, when the Act 45 of 1994 got the assent of President of India under Article 31-C of the Constitution, the same cannot be varied by the Governor even if the Council of Ministers had advised his assent to the Act. "A combined reading of Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution of India makes it very clear that the Constitutional scheme warrants that the Governor ought to have reserved the Bill for the Assent of the President of India under Article 31-C of the Constitution of India. Article 31-B of the Constitution of India mandates that until the Act placed in Ninth Schedule is amended or repealed by the competent Legislature, the said Act shall continue to be in force. Since the Act 45 of 1994 providing undivided 20% reservation for MBC is in force, without amending the same, the impugned Act providing internal reservation to vanniyar is against the Constitutional provisions," the Court ruled..The Court also held that the law was not backed by any quantifiable data, one of the conditions to extend reservation."The Supreme Court, in M Nagaraj v. Union of India held that Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India are only enabling provisions and the said enabling provisions can be exercised only on production of quantifiable data before the Court (i) to prove the backwardness of the class; (ii) inadequate representation of the class in services and (iii) the efficiency of the administration. In the case on hand, the State has not done any such exercise," it was observed.The Act has been passed by the State without any quantifiable data on population, socio-educational status and representation of the backward classes in the services and the sub-classification done by virtue of the impugned Act solely based on population data, in the absence of any objective criteria, is illegal in the eye of law and in violation of the Constitution of India, the Court concluded..[Read Judgment]