SC: Notice Issued On Challenge Against Tamil Nadu Law On Reservation For Backwards Classes

About the Plea

• There were two petitions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that challenged the Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and Appointments under the State within Reservation for Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021.
• The present petition submitted that the Act in question was unconstitutional and violative of Article 340 of the Constitution of India on the basis that reservation is permissible only to classes and not to a particular caste.
• The plea submits that the Act violates legislative norms, Election Model Code of Conduct, Due Process of Law, and the Constitutional Rights of Crore of citizens in the State of Tamil Nadu just to win elections through a particular caste.
• It was submitted that the impugned Act was passed when the Model Code of Conduct was in play merely to meet the demands of Vanniya Kula Kshatriyas without the presence of any quantifiable data.
• A committee was formed for the collection of quantifiable data on caste, communities, and tribes in Tamil Nadu, but it was averred that the committee was yet to submit a report and the Respondents announced 10.5% of reservation for the Vanniya Kula Kshatriyas in undue haste.

More about the Plea

• The plea stated that the petitioner had her quota reduced to 10.5% who was otherwise eligible to utilize 20%. The plea stated that it was not only arbitrary, illegal, and discriminatory but it also failed to follow the due process of law.
• It further stated that the said Act was contrary to the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes Act of 1993 read with the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes Act of 2006.
• The plea highlighted that the sub-classification within the MBC is against the laws laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions.
• The Plea referred to a judgment of 2020 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Jaishri Laxman Rao Patil vs. Chief Minister & Anr. in which the Supreme Court had held that the 102nd Constitutional Amendment involved a substantial question of law and was proceeded to be referred to a larger bench.
• It was submitted that the grievance in the present plea was pari materia with a previous order of the Top Court.

Court’s Orders

• The Bench initially directed the Advocate appearing for one of the petitioners to approach the Madras High Court. The Court reasoned that petitions were already pending before the High Court and if the Top Court had issued notice and kept it pending, the Court would anyway have the judgment of the High Court by then.
• However, Advocate Nagamuthu appearing for one of the petitioners requested the court to issue notice and tag the plea as the same had been done in two other petitions regarding the matter.
• The Bench of Hon’ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat tagged the two pleas with 2 other pending petitions regarding the same matter, however, refused to stay the impugned legislation.
• The Court issued notice on the challenge against Tamil Nadu Law on Reservation for Most Backward Classes (MBC) & Denotified Communities.

What do you think of this matter?