{"id":264955,"date":"2022-04-02T17:00:49","date_gmt":"2022-04-02T11:30:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=264955"},"modified":"2022-04-08T15:40:17","modified_gmt":"2022-04-08T10:10:17","slug":"caste-can-be-the-starting-point-for-providing-internal-reservation-but-not-the-sole-basis-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/02\/caste-can-be-the-starting-point-for-providing-internal-reservation-but-not-the-sole-basis-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Caste can be the starting point for providing internal reservation but not the sole basis: Supreme Court\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court:<\/strong> In a case relating to reservation of seats in Educational Institutions, the bench of L. Nageswara Rao<\/strong>* and BR Gavai, JJ has observed that while caste can be the starting point for providing internal reservation, it is incumbent on the State Government to justify the reasonableness of the decision and demonstrate that caste is not the sole basis.<\/p>\n

After demand was made by various communities to provide for internal reservation, within the reservation provided to \u2018Most Backward Classes (MBCs) and Denotified Communities (DNCs), a letter was written by the Government to Justice M. Thanikachalam, the Chairman of Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission, to give his opinion regarding the possibility of providing internal reservation amongst the communities listed as MBCs and DNCs within the 20 per cent reservation made available to them. Justice M. Thanikachalam promptly recommended sub-categorization amongst the MBCs and DNCs based on the proportion of their population.<\/p>\n

Immediately thereafter, on 24.02.2021, a bill for special reservation within the 20 per cent reserved for MBCs and DNCs was placed before the State Legislative Assembly. On the same day, the bill was passed and it received the assent of the Governor on 26.02.2021.<\/p>\n

By the Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the services under the State within the Reservation for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021, reservation of seats in educational institutions, including private educational institutions, and reservation in appointment or posts in the services under the State were provided in the following manner: ten and a half per cent for \u2018Part-MBC (V) Communities\u2019, seven per cent for \u2018Part-MBC and DNC Communities\u2019 and two and a half per cent for \u2018Part-MBC Communities\u2019. In terms of the Schedule annexed to the 2021 Act, \u2018Part-MBC(V)\u2019 consists of Vanniakula Kshatriya community (including Vanniyar, Vanniya, Vannia Gounder, Gounder or Kander, Padayachi, Palli and Agnikula Kshatriya), \u2018Part-MBC and DNC\u2019 comprise 25 communities from the MBCs and 68 DNCs and the remaining 22 communities of MBCs come under the category of \u2018Part-MBC\u2019.<\/p>\n

The 2021 Act was declared as unconstitutional by the Madras High Court by holding that the State Legislature has no competence to enact the 2021 Act.<\/p>\n

The High Court further found that the internal reservation made only on the basis of caste is violative of the Constitution. It was of the opinion that there was no quantifiable data relating to the population, socio-economic status and representation of the backward classes in the services.<\/p>\n

While the Supreme Court partly disagreed with the High Court and held that there is no bar on the legislative competence of the State to enact the 2021 Act, it agreed with the conclusion that there is no substantial basis for classifying the Vanniakula Kshatriyas into one group to be treated differentially from the remaining 115 communities within the MBCs and DNCs, and therefore, the 2021 Act is in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16.<\/p>\n

Key highlights of the 87 pages long judgment <\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n