Supreme Court Upholds Tamil Nadu’s Power to Sub-Classify Backward Classes but Strikes Down 2021 Act’s Reservation for Vanniakula Kshatriyas

While affirming State legislative competence post-102nd Amendment, SC finds internal reservation based solely on outdated population data unconstitutional under Articles 14, 15, and 16

In a landmark judgment dated March 31, 2022, the Supreme Court of India delivered a nuanced verdict concerning the Tamil Nadu Special Reservation Act, 2021 (“2021 Act”), which sought to provide internal reservation within the Most Backward Classes (MBCs) and Denotified Communities (DNCs), specifically earmarking 10.5% for the Vanniakula Kshatriya community. The Court, in Civil Appeal No. 2600 of 2022 and connected appeals, upheld the legislative competence of the Tamil Nadu State Legislature to enact such a law but struck down the impugned 2021 Act on grounds of unreasonableness and violation of constitutional equality guarantees.

Background:

Reservation for backward classes in Tamil Nadu has a long and complex history. Beginning with pre-Constitution communal representation policies in the Madras Presidency, and evolving through various commissions and government orders, the State has maintained a system of reservation including a 69% quota for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Backward Classes (BC), Most Backward Classes (MBC), and Denotified Communities (DNC). The Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions and Services) Act, 1994 (“1994 Act”) placed these reservations in law and was included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.

The 2021 Act sought to sub-classify the 20% reservation earmarked for MBCs and DNCs, granting 10.5% to the Vanniakula Kshatriya community, 7% to a group of MBCs and DNCs, and 2.5% to the remaining MBC communities. This led to a constitutional challenge before the Madras High Court, which struck down the 2021 Act as unconstitutional.

Key Issues and Supreme Court’s Findings:

1. Legislative Competence Post-102nd and 105th Constitutional Amendments:

The Court examined whether the State legislature had the authority to enact the 2021 Act after the 102nd Amendment (2018), which vested exclusive power to identify Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) with the President of India, and the subsequent 105th Amendment (2021), which clarified the roles of States and the Union in this matter. The Court held that since the 2021 Act was enacted before the 105th Amendment came into force, the 102nd Amendment governed at the time. However, the 102nd Amendment only restricted States from identifying SEBCs but did not bar them from sub-classifying already identified backward classes. The identification of MBCs and DNCs had already been completed by the State under the 1994 Act. Thus, sub-classification for determining reservation percentages was held to be a permissible legislative exercise under Article 342-A.

2. Permissibility of Sub-Classification Among Backward Classes:

The Court distinguished the case law relating to Scheduled Castes (notably E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P.), where sub-classification by State legislatures was held impermissible as it would alter the Presidential list under Article 341. By contrast, it reaffirmed the principle from Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) that sub-classification of backward classes is constitutionally permissible. The Court underscored that the prohibition on sub-division applies only to Scheduled Castes and Tribes, not to backward classes.

3. Impact of Article 31-B and Ninth Schedule Protection:

The 1994 Act’s placement in the Ninth Schedule protects it from challenge on grounds of fundamental rights violation. However, the Court clarified that this protection does not extend to subsequent enactments or amendments not included in the Ninth Schedule. The 2021 Act, being a separate legislation ancillary to the 1994 Act, was validly enacted by the State Legislature and was not barred by Article 31-B.

4. Assent of the President under Article 31-C Not Mandatory for Ancillary Legislation:

Although the 1994 Act received the President’s assent under Article 31-C, the Court held that the State Legislature is not compelled to seek such assent for laws ancillary to that Act, especially where the State has legislative competence under the Constitution. The 2021 Act’s approval by the Governor was valid.

5. Caste as Basis for Reservation and Sub-Classification:

The Court recognized caste as a legitimate starting point for identifying backward classes and for sub-classification, provided it is not the sole criterion. The State must justify the reasonableness of the classification and demonstrate that caste is not the exclusive basis for reservation.

6. Validity of the 2021 Act’s Classification and Use of Data:

The Court critically examined the data and reports underlying the 2021 Act’s reservation scheme. It found that the recommendations relied heavily on outdated population data from the 1980s and did not consider socio-economic backwardness, representation in public employment, or other criteria. The principal basis was population proportion alone, which the Court held was impermissible as it equates “adequate representation” with “proportionate representation,” contrary to the judgment in Indra Sawhney.

The Court noted that the Vanniakula Kshatriyas had higher representation in education and public employment compared to many other MBCs and DNCs, undermining the justification for separate reservation. The absence of contemporaneous caste-wise data and failure to consider the relative backwardness of other communities rendered the classification arbitrary and unreasonable.

7. Non-Compliance with Mandatory Consultation under Article 338-B(9):

Though the Court acknowledged that the State did not consult the National Commission for Backward Classes before enacting the 2021 Act as required by Article 338-B(9) prior to the 105th Amendment, it refrained from invalidating the Act solely on this ground since it was already found unconstitutional on other grounds.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part, holding that:

- The State Legislature had the competence to enact the 2021 Act for sub-classification within backward classes, and the 105th Amendment was prospective and not applicable at the time of enactment.

- Sub-classification of backward classes is constitutionally permissible.

- The 1994 Act’s placement in the Ninth Schedule does not bar the State from enacting ancillary legislation.

- Caste can be a starting criterion but cannot be the sole basis for internal reservation.

- The 2021 Act’s classification was not based on reasonable criteria and was unconstitutional under Articles 14, 15, and 16.

- Consequently, the 2021 Act was struck down.

- The requirement to consult the National Commission was acknowledged but not determinative of invalidity.

The Court clarified that no opinion was expressed on the validity of the 1994 Act, which remains pending before it.

This judgment upholds the principle that while States can sub-classify backward classes for reservation, such classifications must be reasonable, supported by relevant and up-to-date data, and not arbitrary or solely based on population.

Statutory provisions

Articles 14, 15(4), 16(4), 29(2), 31-B, 31-C, 338-B(9), 342-A, 366(26C) of the Constitution of India; 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, 1994; Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in services under State within Reservation for Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021; Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) Act, 2018; Constitution (One Hundred and Fifth Amendment) Act, 2021.

Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1963188