Tamil Nadu Special Reservation Act Struck Down: Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 31 March 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 285
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and B.R. Gavai, J.

Can a state government create special reservations within existing quotas based solely on caste? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, examining the constitutionality of the Tamil Nadu Special Reservation Act of 2021. This act provided a separate reservation for the Vanniakula Kshatriya community within the Most Backward Classes (MBC) quota. The court scrutinized whether this sub-classification was permissible under the Constitution and whether it was based on adequate data and objective criteria.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, delivered the judgment. The court analyzed the legal framework, arguments presented by both sides, and the relevant precedents to arrive at its decision.

Case Background

The case has its roots in the history of communal representation in the Madras Presidency, which existed before the Indian Constitution came into force. The Madras High Court had previously struck down a government order providing communal representation, a decision that was upheld by the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan. This led to the insertion of Article 15(4) in the Constitution, allowing the state to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes.

Over the years, the Tamil Nadu government appointed several Backward Class Commissions to study and recommend measures for the advancement of backward classes. These included the Sattanathan Commission (1969) and the Ambasankar Commission (1982). The state government increased reservation quotas for Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes/Tribes based on these recommendations. In 1985, the government classified certain communities as ‘Most Backward Classes’ (MBCs) and ‘Denotified Communities’ (DNCs), with the Vanniakula Kshatriya community included in the list of MBCs.

In 1994, the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993 (the “1994 Act”) was enacted, providing for 69% reservation in educational institutions and public services. This act was later placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. However, the validity of the 1994 Act was challenged, and the Supreme Court directed the state to collect quantifiable data to justify the reservation. In 2021, the Tamil Nadu government enacted the Tamil Nadu Special Reservation Act of 2021, which provided a 10.5% internal reservation for the Vanniakula Kshatriya community within the 20% quota for MBCs and DNCs. This act was challenged in the Madras High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, declared the Tamil Nadu Special Reservation Act of 2021 unconstitutional in its judgment dated 01.11.2021. The High Court framed seven points for consideration, including the legislative competence of the State Legislature, the validity of varying an Act placed in the Ninth Schedule, the power of the State to make decisions regarding Backward Classes, and the permissibility of caste-based reservation without quantifiable data. The High Court held that the State Legislature lacked the competence to enact the 2021 Act, that the internal reservation based on caste was unconstitutional, and that there was no quantifiable data to support the reservation. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of several key constitutional provisions:

• Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
• Article 15(4): Empowers the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes.
• Article 16(4): Empowers the State to make provisions for reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
• Article 31-B: Protects certain laws placed in the Ninth Schedule from being challenged on the ground that they violate fundamental rights.
• Article 338-B: Establishes the National Commission for Backward Classes. Clause (9) mandates that the Union and every State Government shall consult the Commission on all major policy matters affecting the socially and educationally backward classes.
• Article 342-A: Specifies the socially and educationally backward classes. It states that the President may, by public notification, specify the socially and educationally backward classes in the Central List, after consultation with the Governor. It also states that every State or Union territory may, by law, prepare and maintain, for its own purposes, a list of socially and educationally backward classes, entries in which may be different from the Central List.
• Article 366(26C): Defines “socially and educationally backward classes” as those deemed so under Article 342A.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The State of Tamil Nadu argued that the 2021 Act does not identify, exclude, or include any community in the list of backward classes. The exercise of classification was already done by G.O. Ms. No. 28 dated 19.07.1994 under the 1994 Act. The 2021 Act only sub-classifies the MBCs and allocates 10.5% reservation for the Vanniakula Kshatriya community within the 20% earmarked for MBCs and DNCs.
• The 105th Amendment Act is clarificatory and should be deemed to have come into force from 15.08.2018, the date Article 342-A was given effect.
• The judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister only excluded the specification of SEBCs by the States under the 102nd Amendment Act. If a community was already included in the State’s list of SEBCs, there was no bar on the State to provide for sub-classification.
• The State has the power to amend or repeal a statute which has been placed under the Ninth Schedule. Article 31-B does not place any fetter on the power of the State to legislate on such matters nor does it prescribe any mandatory requirement for such legislations to be included within the Ninth Schedule.
• The 2021 Act is pursuant to the mandate of Section 7 of the 1994 Act, which had received the assent of the President, and it is not necessary for the State to have reserved the 2021 Act for consideration of the President.
• The reports of the Sattanathan Commission and the Ambasankar Commission show that the condition of the Vanniakula Kshatriyas had been assessed meticulously. The Janarthanam Commission had recommended 10.5% internal reservation for the Vanniakula Kshatriyas after a feasibility analysis.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The State did not have legislative competence to identify SEBCs on 26.02.2021, the date the 2021 Act came into force. The 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act was in force on 26.02.2021, according to which SEBCs can be specified only by the President.
• The 105th Amendment Act is prospective and not retrospective.
• The 2021 Act is in conflict with the 1994 Act as the 1994 Act provides for composite reservation of 20% for MBCs and DNCs, whereas under the 2021 Act, 10.5% has been delineated for one community.
• A statute placed in the Ninth Schedule becomes part of the Constitution and cannot be amended or added to by the State Legislature.
• The internal reservation of 10.5% for the Vanniakula Kshatriyas is only on the basis of caste and is violative of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.
• The State did not have any quantifiable data to support the sub-classification of MBCs and DNCs.
• The internal reservation was done without any objective criteria and was an attempt to provide proportionate representation, which is against the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
• The State should have consulted the National Commission for Backward Classes before providing internal reservation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the State Legislature has the competence to enact the 2021 Act after the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018 and before the 105th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021?
2. Whether an Act placed under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India can be varied without amending the said Act?
3. Whether the State Government had the power to take any decision with regard to Backward Classes in the teeth of the Constitutional provisions, more particularly, Article 338-B of the Constitution of India?
4. Whether the State has the power to provide reservation based on caste?
5. Whether reservation can be provided without any quantifiable data on population, socio-educational status, and representation of the backward classes in the services?
6. Whether the impugned Act providing reservation of 10.5% to MBC(V), without any quantifiable data, is in violation of Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India?
7. Whether the sub-classification of MBC into three categories can be done solely based on adequate population data, in the absence of any objective criteria?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court’s decision, declaring the Tamil Nadu Special Reservation Act of 2021 unconstitutional. The court held that:

• The State Legislature had the competence to enact the 2021 Act as it was a sub-classification within the existing list of backward classes and not a fresh identification of SEBCs.
• Article 31-B does not bar the State from enacting ancillary laws, even if they vary a law placed in the Ninth Schedule.
• Article 338-B(9) mandates consultation with the National Commission for Backward Classes but does not restrict the State’s legislative power.
• While caste can be a starting point for reservation, it cannot be the sole basis.
• Reservation cannot be provided without quantifiable data on population, socio-educational status, and representation of the backward classes.
• The 10.5% internal reservation for the Vanniakula Kshatriya community was done without any quantifiable data, objective criteria, or a substantial basis for differentiation.
• Sub-classification of MBCs based solely on population data is not permissible.

The court emphasized that any sub-classification within backward classes must be based on objective criteria and supported by quantifiable data. The court found that the Tamil Nadu government had failed to provide such data and had relied solely on caste for the internal reservation, which is unconstitutional.

Flowchart of the Decision-Making Process

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case is a significant ruling on the issue of internal reservation within backward classes. The court has clarified that while the State has the power to make special provisions for backward classes, such provisions must be based on objective criteria and supported by quantifiable data. The court’s decision underscores the importance of evidence-based policy-making and the need to avoid caste-based reservations without adequate justification. This judgment will have implications for other states considering similar sub-classifications within backward classes. It emphasizes the need for a comprehensive and data-driven approach to ensure that reservation policies are constitutionally valid and serve the intended purpose of social justice.