Supreme Court Issues Notice On Challenge Against Tamil Nadu Law On Reservation For Most Backward Classes & Denotified Communities

A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat tagged the pleas with two other pending petitions on a similar issue. However, the Court refused to stay the legislation.

In today's hearing, the Bench initially directed Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, appearing for one of the Petitioners, to approach the Madras High Court.

"Already petitions are pending before the High Court. Please go there. Why don't you let them decide so that we have the benefit of the judgment? If we issue notice and keep it pending, we will anyway have the judgment of the High Court by then", remarked the Court.

Nagamuthu, however, requested the Court to issue notice and tag the plea as the same had been done in two other petitions pertaining to the matter. Senior Advocate Anita Shenoy appeared in the other petition.

Accordingly, the Court proceeded to issue notice and tag the plea with pending matters.

The instant petition submits that the impugned Act is unconstitutional and violative of Article 340 of the Constitution of India on the ground that reservation is permissible only to classes and not to a particular caste.

"…impugned Act has been rushed through in patent violation of all the legislative norms, Election Model Code of Conduct, Due process of law and in violation of constitutional rights of crores of citizens in Tamil Nadu just to win electoral gains from a particular caste", submits the plea.

It is averred that the impugned Act was passed when the Model Code of Conduct was in play only to meet the demand of Vanniya Kula Kshatriyas without the presence of any quantifiable data. Due to this, a Special Commission was appointed for collection of quantifiable data on caste, communities and tribes in Tamil Nadu with Justice A. Kulasekaran (Retd.) as the Chairman. However, the plea submits, that the Committee is yet to submit any report and in undue haste, the Respondents announced that the Vanniya Kula Kshatriyas would be given 10.5% reservation.

The plea filed through Advocate Sriram P states that the Petitioner, who is otherwise eligible to utilize 20%, has had her quota reduced to 10.5%, and the same is "not only arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and in fragrant violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, but also it has failed to follow the procedure enunciated under the law…".

Stating that the impugned Act is contrary to the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in Services under the State) Act, 1993, read with Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Private Educational Institutions) Act, 2006, the plea underlines that sub-classification within Most Backward Class is against the well settled law laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions.

The plea further refers to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court dated 9 September, 2020 in Dr. Jaishri Laxman Rao Patil v. Chief Minister and Anr. wherein the Court had stated that the interpretation of 102^nd Constitutional Amendment involved a substantial question of law, and proceeded to refer the issue to a larger Bench. It is submitted that the grievance in the instant plea is in pari materia with the previous Order of the Supreme Court.