Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2022 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1597 - SUPREME COURTConstitutionality 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.
|