2022 (3) TMI 1597 - SC - Indian Laws

Constitutionality of Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the services under the State - HELD THAT - There is no bar on the legislative competence of the State to enact the 2021 Act and on the different grounds urged with respect to this issue, it is held that (i) The 105th Amendment Act being prospective in operation, it is the 102nd Amendment Act which held the field at the time of enactment of the 2021 Act. (ii) As the 2021 Act dealt with sub-classification and apportionment of certain percentage of reservation for the purpose of determining the extent of reservation of communities within the MBCs and DNCs, it is a permissible exercise of power by the State Government Under Article 342-A of the Constitution in terms of the judgment of this Court in Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil (supra). Prior to the 105th Amendment Act, what was prohibited for the State to carry out Under Article 342-A is the identification of SEBCs, by inclusion or exclusion of communities in the Presidential list of SEBCs. It is clear that the exercise of identification of MBCs and DNCs had been completed by the State pursuant to the 1994 Act. (iii) There is no bar to the sub-classification amongst backward classes, which has been expressly approved in Indra Sawhney (supra). Even considering the judgment in E.V. Chinnaiah (supra), which dealt with the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes identified in the Presidential list Under Article 341 and held that any sub-division of Scheduled Castes by the State would amount to tinkering with the Presidential list, the State's competence in the present case to enact the 2021 Act is not taken away on this ground as, admittedly, the Presidential list of SEBCs is yet to be published, making the question of tinkering with such list redundant. (iv) Placing of the 1994 Act under the Ninth Schedule cannot operate as a hurdle for the State to enact legislations on matters ancillary to the 1994 Act. Legislative competence of the State Legislature can only be circumscribed by express prohibition contained in the Constitution itself and Article 31-B does not stipulate any such express prohibition on the legislative powers of the State. (v) Detailing the extent of reservation for communities already identified as MBCs and DNCs, which is the thrust of the 2021 Act, cannot be said to be in conflict with the 1994 Act, as determination of extent of reservation for various communities was not the subject matter of the 1994 Act. (vi) The 1994 Act, having received the assent of the President Under Article 31-C, does not prohibit the State Legislature from enacting a legislation with the approval of the Governor on matters ancillary to the 1994 Act, as Article 31-C does not place any fetter on the legislative powers of the State. The State cannot be compelled to seek the assent of the President for a legislation granting internal reservation, when it is empowered to provide reservation and other special measures for backward classes, by way of legislation as well as executive orders, Under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution. 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. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature in Enacting the 2021 Act.
2. Permissibility of Sub-classification Amongst Backward Classes.
3. Bar on Competence Under Article 31-B of the Constitution.
4. Effect of the 1994 Act Receiving Presidential Assent Under Article 31-C of the Constitution.
5. Caste-based Classification.
6. Scrutiny of the Report of Thanikachalam, J. and Constitutional Validity of the 2021 Act.
7. Non-compliance with Article 338-B(9) of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

I. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature in Enacting the 2021 Act

The Tamil Nadu Special Reservation Act, 2021 was challenged for its constitutionality. The High Court declared it unconstitutional, citing the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018, which ousted the State's power to identify backward classes. The Supreme Court held that the 105th Amendment Act, 2021, which restored the State's power, was prospective. The 2021 Act dealt with sub-classification and was permissible under Article 342-A as per the judgment in Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil. The identification of MBCs and DNCs was already completed under the 1994 Act. Thus, the State had legislative competence to enact the 2021 Act.

II. Permissibility of Sub-classification Amongst Backward Classes

The High Court, relying on E.V. Chinnaiah, held that sub-classification of backward classes was impermissible. The Supreme Court disagreed, citing Indra Sawhney, which allowed sub-classification of backward classes. The Court clarified that sub-classification of backward classes is permissible, provided it is reasonable and not solely based on caste.

III. Bar on Competence Under Article 31-B of the Constitution

The High Court held that the 2021 Act conflicted with the 1994 Act, which was placed in the Ninth Schedule. The Supreme Court found no merit in this, stating that Article 31-B does not restrict the State's legislative power. The State can enact laws on matters ancillary to the 1994 Act. The 2021 Act, detailing the extent of reservation, did not conflict with the 1994 Act.

IV. Effect of the 1994 Act Receiving Presidential Assent Under Article 31-C of the Constitution

The High Court opined that the 2021 Act required Presidential assent as the 1994 Act had it under Article 31-C. The Supreme Court held that the absence of Presidential assent does not affect the State's legislative competence. The State can decide whether a law should receive the protection of Article 31-C. The 2021 Act, being ancillary to the 1994 Act, did not require Presidential assent.

V. Caste-based Classification

The High Court held that the 2021 Act's internal reservation for Vanniakula Kshatriyas was solely based on caste, violating Articles 14, 15, and 16. The Supreme Court agreed that while caste can be a starting point, it cannot be the sole basis for reservation. The State must justify the reasonableness of the sub-classification and demonstrate that caste is not the only criterion.

VI. Scrutiny of the Report of Thanikachalam, J. and Constitutional Validity of the 2021 Act

The High Court found no quantifiable data supporting the 2021 Act. The Supreme Court scrutinized the reports of the Janarthanam and Thanikachalam Commissions. The Janarthanam Commission's recommendation was based on outdated data from 1985. The Thanikachalam Commission's report lacked independent evaluation and relied solely on population data, which is insufficient. The Supreme Court held that the 2021 Act, based on these flawed reports, was unconstitutional.

VII. Non-compliance with Article 338-B(9) of the Constitution

The High Court noted that the State did not consult the National Commission for Backward Classes before enacting the 2021 Act, violating Article 338-B(9). The Supreme Court agreed that consultation was mandatory, but the non-compliance did not affect the State's legislative competence. However, the 2021 Act was already found unconstitutional on other grounds.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, declaring the 2021 Act unconstitutional. The Act violated Articles 14, 15, and 16 as it was based on outdated data and population alone. The State had legislative competence to enact the 2021 Act, but the classification and reservation provided were unreasonable and discriminatory. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.