Pattalimakkalkatchi vs A. Mayilerumperumal (2022)

Pattalimakkalkatchi vs A. Mayilerumperumal (2022)

Parties

APPELLENT  : pattalimakkalkatchi

RESPONDENT : A. Mayilerumperumal

Case details

Case name : PattaliMakkalKatchi Vs A. Mayilerumperumal

Court: Supreme Court

Decision: 31/03/2022

Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai

Facts

Pattalimakkalkatchi is a BJP political party in Tamil Nadu, India. 

Prior to the implementation of the Indian Constitution, there was communal representation in public offices in the Madras Presidency. The 1993 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 (hereinafter, the “1994 Act”) was passed to establish reservations for admission to educational institutions in the State as well as for appointments to positions in the State’s services. 

The Vanniakula Kshatriya community, among others, requested internal reservation for each of these communities under the 20% reserve for MBCs and DNCs in the writ petition that was submitted to the High Court of Madras.  The Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission, presided over by Justice M.S. Janarthanam (retired) of the Madras High Court, submitted a report on June 13, 2012. The Chairman proposed an internal reservation of 10.5% for Vanniakula Kshatriyas, and the remaining six commissioners sent a note of disagreement.  Another Commission, led by Justice A. Kulasekaran (ret.) of the Madras High Court, was established on December 21, 2020, with the goal of collecting quantifiable data by caste. The government acknowledged the urgent necessity to gather caste and tribal specific data “as on date” because the caste-specific data gathered by the Ambasankar Commission was more than three decades old.  The Commission was established, according to the abovementioned G.O., in response to the requests of various political parties and community organisations.

 Before the Madras High Court, individuals from various MBCs challenged the TN Act.

They argued that because the Act was passed before the 105th Constitutional Amendment, the TN’s government lacked the authority to do so.

Argument

Respondent (s) 

The TN Act of 2021, which gave the Vanniyar group 10.5% of the 20% reservation for the Most Backward Classes in educational institutions and government posts, was declared unconstitutional by the L. Nageshwar judgment, Madras High Court ruling, and Supreme Court upheld this decision on January 11, 2021.

In State of Madras Vs SrimathiChampakamDorairajan On November 21, 1947, the Madras High Court ruled that communal representation was unconstitutional. This Court upheld the aforementioned Madras High Court decision. This Court ruled that the Indian Constitution’s Article 29(2) fundamental right was violated by any classification based on race, religion, or caste. 

Backward classes are highlighted in provision of 15(4) and 16(4) as deserving of equality. To ensure proper representation, special arrangements are created for the advancement of underprivileged classes, and appointments and positions are reserved for them. Differentiation, which serves as the foundation for classification, must be solid and appropriate in respect to the goal of the law.  If the goal is discriminatory in nature, it doesn’t matter if the classification is justified or has a rational connection to the goal. 

The classification formed under the 2021 Act amounted to discriminating against equals, according to the respondents, who disputed the aforementioned arguments. To contend that an urgent and persistent search for a basis for classification will strip Article 14 of the equality dispensation in Col. A.S. Iyer v. V. Balasubramanyam.  The allotment of percentages and discrimination between the Vanniakula Kshatriyas were completely arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 because there was no justification for treating them differently.

116 castes could be discovered in the combined lists of MBCs and DNCs at the time the 2021 Act was enacted.  In the absence of a valid distinction from other communities that are similarly situated and were consequently grouped together in order to benefit from the 20% reservation, choosing a specific caste and granting a special reservation of 10.5% of the 20% to such caste is discriminatory. 

Appellant(s) 

The appellants relied on In Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, the State argued that, given the pertinent facts and circumstances, it was in the best position to decide what kind of special provisions should be created in behalf of a certain class and that legislative judgement should be given due respect.

He further attempted to persuade this Court that the 105th Amendment Act’s addition of clause (3) to Article 342-A, which essentially imposes a procedural obligation on a State or Union Territory to create and maintain a list of SEBCs for its own purposes, is the only substantive change made by this Act.

It was contended that IndraSawhney v. Union of India established the legality of subclassifying backward classes. It was argued that the legality of sub-classifying people into less privileged groups, as was done in the 2021 Act, cannot be disputed.

Issues

1. Is TN’s Act, 2021 regarding Reservations for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities unconstitutional? 

2. Whether the state has the authority to offer caste-based reservations? 

3. Whether the state legislature has the authority to enact the impugned Act before the 105th amendment Act of 2021 and after the 102nd constitutional amendment Act of 2018? 

Judgement

This landmark judgement given by L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai to treat equality with equals.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution 105th Amendment Act is prospective in character in its ruling that the Tamil Nadu statute providing internal reservation of 10.5% to the Vanniyar Community under the category of Most Backward Classes is unconstitutional

The reservation for Vanniyars under Tamil Nadu’s Most Backward Classes category in employment and education was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court. The Court noted that there was no empirical evidence of backwardness to back up the reservation. 

Caste can serve as the foundation for internal reservation, but it is the state government’s responsibility to demonstrate the reasonability of the sub – classification and show that caste is not the only factor at play.

 Due to the lack of quantifiable facts, the 2021 Act is ultra vires and the state legislature has no power to pass it.

 Article 342-A. Socially and educationally backward classes.-

Explanation.- For the purposes of clauses (1) and

(2), the expression “Central List” means the list of

socially and educationally backward classes prepared and maintained by and for the Central Government.

Conclusion

The Court determined that the 2021 Act discriminates against other MBC groups, who suffer since they are unable to obtain such a significant portion of the reserved seats.

This goes directly against the law established by this Court and recommends internal reservation for the Vanniakula Kshatriyas solely on the basis of population. Last but not least, we believe that the 2021 Act violates Articles 14, 15, and 16 since there is no sufficient basis for designating the Vanniakula Kshatriyas as a single group that will be treated differently from the existing 115 communities inside the MBCs and DNCs.  On this point, we uphold the High Court’s ruling.  We have refrained from exploring the question of the State Government’s noncompliance with Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution given our determination that the 2021 Act is ultra vires.

Author(s)-  Aashi jain , manipal university jaipur.