Senior Counsel Radhakrishnan contesting on the behalf of the petitioner S. Ramadoss in related mattes connected to the problem of Vanniyar reservation observed that in each situation, it is justifiable what law has been made, thus equality of opportunity allows discrimination with reason.
Honble Bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai have directed the counsel to complete their arguments.
The bench was hearing clubbed petitions challenging the Madras High Court's decision in V.V. Saminathan vs The Government of Tamil Nadu on September 29, 2021, [1] in which the court held that the Tamil Nadu government's 10.5 percent internal reservation for the Vanniyar community, as part of the existing 20 percent reservation for Most Backward Classes, was inconsistent with the constitution.
"I'm challenging the impugned judgement, erroneous conclusions have been derived and assumptions have been made that there is no data," counsel for the petitioner Radhakrishnan said, referring to the Supreme Court judgement in the case of the Barium Chemicals Ltd. And Anr vs The Company Law Board and Others on 4 May 1966. [2]
Furthermore, Senior Advocate P Willson, representing for the State of Tamil Nadu, argued before the court that the community's reservation is justifiable because the Sattanathan Commission's primary data was census data. "We want to highlight the Sattanathan Commission's detailed assessment for the implementation of reservation," Wilson remarked. `
"As far as the sub-classification is concerned, they intended to find so far as the 20% reserve given," Wilson said of the Amba Shankar report. However, most of the members of the report have not mentioned about the method followed.
Wilson stated that the Chairman's advice was followed, but the bench questioned how the State could rely on such a report when seven members of the committee disagree with him. "How can a commission decide unanimously?" the bench continued.
Wilson answered by stating that the whole report, as well as the Chairman's ideas and the dissenting arguments of the other members, was with the government.
Following the end of the petitioners' arguments, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for the respondents, argued that there was no consultation with the National Commission for Backward Classes, as required by the constitution.
"There was no legislative competence to enact this legislation, the whole act falls to the ground as ultra vires" SankaraNarayanan observed.
Sankaranarayanan argues that the Act was enacted because the 105th Amendment was retrospective. "The only way to know if anything is retrospective is if the words state so and the provision refers to a previous date," he argues. He goes on to say that if such a measure is approved, the Parliament will clarify all major principles.
The Supreme Court had previously refused to refer the Vanniyar community reservation case to a higher court. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented the State of Tamil Nadu in continuing arguments on merit. He said that the 102nd amendment's legislative objective is to emphasize that states and union territories may continue to have their own separate list.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
While holding the Tamil Nadu government's law specifying 10.5 percent internal reservation for Vanniyar within the 20% quota allocated to Most Backward Castes (MBCs) in government jobs and educational institutions as constitutionally questionable, a Madras High Court bench of Justices M. Duraisamy and Muralishankar noted that it is an arbitrary micro classification.
Earlier, a bench comprising Justice MM Sundaresh (before to his admission to the Supreme Court) and Justice Kannamal heard a batch of petitions challenging the law.
The petitioners argued that, following the insertion of the 102nd Amendment to the Constitution of India, the State Government no longer has the authority to identify or classify any communityas backward, and that this is now solely the province of Parliament, and that the impugned Act thus violates Articles 338-B and 342-A of the Constitution of India.
Furthermore, the National Commission for Backward Classes, which is a constitutional body established under Article 333-B of the Indian Constitution and is under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, will be the competent authority to notify a caste.
It was also argued that Article 340of the Constitution expressly states that the President may, by order, appoint a Commission consisting of such persons as he deems fit to investigate the conditions of the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) within the territory of India and the difficulties they face, and to make recommendations as to the steps the Union or any State should take to alleviate those difficulties. Internal quota of 10.5 percent out of a total of 20% has been granted to the Vanniyar Community by the state of Tamil Nadu. MBC will receive more than half of this money.
[1] W.P NO.15679 OF 2021
[2] 1966 SCR 311
