Summary
The Court upheld invalidation of Tamil Nadu’s 2021 internal-reservation law granting 10.5% to Vanniakula Kshatriyas within the 20% MBC/DNC quota. It rejected the High Court’s finding of legislative incompetence: sub-classification of already identified backward classes was permissible. However, the particular preference lacked contemporaneous comparative evidence and relied on population alone, violating equality guarantees. The broader 1994 law’s validity and other reservation challenges remained open.
Issues
- Whether Tamil Nadu had competence to enact internal reservation for already identified backward communities.
- Whether the 105th Constitutional Amendment operated retrospectively.
- Whether the 1994 law’s Ninth Schedule status and Presidential assent prevented separate ancillary legislation.
- Whether contemporaneous evidence justified the particular sub-classification and reservation percentages.
- Whether non-consultation with the National Commission required an additional ruling.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14, 15(4) and 16(4), Constitution of IndiaThe particular sub-classification lacked a substantial comparative basis and infringed equality despite the State’s enabling reservation powers. (¶¶ 52-74, 77)
- Article 342-A and Constitution (105th Amendment) Act, 2021, Constitution of IndiaDistinguished new identification of backward classes from apportionment among communities already identified; the later amendment was prospective. (¶¶ 22-31, 77)
- Articles 31-B and 31-C, Constitution of IndiaNeither Ninth Schedule inclusion nor earlier Presidential assent barred otherwise competent ancillary State legislation; corresponding immunity did not automatically follow. (¶ 39-51)
- Article 338-B(9), Constitution of IndiaMandatory consultation was distinguished from legislative competence, but the Court declined a separate decision on the consequence of non-consultation here. (¶ 75-77)
- Sections 3 and 4 with Schedule, Tamil Nadu Special Reservation Act, 2021 (Tamil Nadu Act 8 of 2021)The internal reservation scheme was held unconstitutional for want of a sound basis differentiating the preferred community. (¶¶ 10, 69-74, 77)
Held
- The 105th Amendment was prospective. Even under the preceding constitutional position, the State retained power to determine reservation among already identified backward communities; this exercise did not amount to adding or removing a community from the backward-class list. (¶¶ 28-31, 77)
- Reasonable sub-classification of backward classes was permissible under Indra Sawhney. The High Court wrongly applied the Scheduled Caste-list reasoning of E.V. Chinnaiah to deny competence in this case. (¶ 32-38)
- Article 31-B did not bar the State from amending a Ninth Schedule statute or legislating on ancillary matters. A new provision did not automatically inherit Ninth Schedule immunity, and the 2021 scheme remained open to fundamental-rights review. (¶ 39-46)
- The earlier law’s Presidential assent did not require assent for every otherwise competent ancillary enactment. Article 31-C protection and legislative competence were distinct questions on the circumstances presented. (¶ 47-51)
- Caste could be a starting point, but could not alone justify the preferential sub-classification. Adequate representation was distinct from representation proportionate to population, although population could be a relevant factor. (¶¶ 52-54, 66)
- Deference to an expert commission did not exclude scrutiny of whether its recommendations were supported by the stated material. Here the Chairman relied on an older minority recommendation without answering the majority’s concern about outdated evidence or demonstrating comparative backwardness and representation. (¶ 58-65)
- Without contemporaneous comparative material supporting a distinct preference, allocation of 10.5% to one community from the shared quota was unreasonable and violated Articles 14, 15 and 16. The State remained free to collect pertinent current evidence for a lawful future exercise. (¶¶ 64-74, 77)
- Consultation under Article 338-B(9) was mandatory at the relevant time, but its absence did not remove legislative competence. Having invalidated the law on equality grounds, the Court refrained from deciding the additional non-consultation issue. (¶ 75-77)
- The judgment was confined to the challenged 2021 law. It expressed no opinion on the pending challenge to the 1994 law or other reservation legislation mentioned in the proceedings. (¶ 78)
Result
Appeals disposed of. The High Court’s invalidation of the 2021 law was upheld on Articles 14, 15 and 16 grounds, while its conclusions denying State legislative competence were rejected. The merits of the challenge to the 1994 law and other legislation were expressly left open.