PATTALI MAKKAL KATCHI versus A. MAYILERUMPERUMAL & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 19 S.C.R. 42 · Decided: 31-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 20 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
42
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 42
42
PATTALI MAKKAL KATCHI
v.
A. MAYILERUMPERUMAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2600 of 2022)
MARCH 31, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of seats in Educational
Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of
appointments or posts in the services under the State within the
Reservation for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified
Communities Act, 2021 – 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, 1993 – ss. 2, 3(a), 4, 5 & 7 – Validity of 2021 Act –
Backward Class Reservation – Reservation of seats in educational
institutions – Reservation in appointments or posts in the services
under the state – Classification of Backward Classes – An Act (2021
Act) for special reservation within 20% reserved Most Backward
Classes (MBCs) and De-notified Communities (DNCs) was passed
by State assembly – The bill provides reservation of seats in private
educational institutions, and reservation in appointment or posts in
the services under the State – 10.5% reservation was specifically
earmarked for the Vanniyakula Kshatriya community – Writ petitions
were filed in the High Court assailing the constitutional validity of
2021 Act – The High Court held that the State Legislature had no
competence to enact the 2021 Act and there was no quantifiable
data – The High Court further found that the internal reservation
made only on the basis of caste is violative of Constitution – On
appeal, held: There is no bar on the legislative competence of the
State to enact the 2021 Act – State Government has the competence
to classify the Vanniakula Kshatriyas or any other community or
group of communities within backward classes as a particular class
for the grant of special measures, there should be a reasonable
basis for categorising such communities into a different section from
the rest of the communities within the MBCs and DNCs, on grounds
which cannot be superficial or illusory – By taking into account
the population of the Vanniakula Kshatriyas as enumerated in the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
43
report of the Ambasankar Commission in 1985, the Chairman
recommended internal reservation, i.e., 10.5 per cent – Any study
by the Commission should be with regard to the present status since
the object is to take affirmative actions in present or in future to
address the needs of a particular community – There was 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.
Constitution of India – Art. 341 – 102nd Amendment Act –
Sub Categorisation of Classes – What the 102nd Amendment prohibits
the State from undertaking is identifying a caste as SEBC or
including or excluding a community from the list notified by the
President – A close scrutiny of E.V. Chinnaiah would make it clear
that the High Court was wrong in relying upon the said judgment to
hold that sub classification of backward classes is beyond the
legislative competence of the State – A Presidential list for SEBCs
did not come into existence and the question of sub-division of the
said list by way of the 2021 Act does not arise.
Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 — Article 31-B - It is
settled law that any amendment made to a statute placed under the
Ninth Schedule does not get protection under Article 31-B, unless the
said amendment is also included in the Ninth Schedule— Thus, Article
31-B does not operate as a hurdle for the State to enact statutes on
matters ancillary to the 1994 Act – It is made clear that it was open to
the State to have amended the 1994 Act – At the same time, it cannot
be said that the State Legislature lacked competence to enact a
legislation for determining the extent of reservation amongst the MBCs
and DNCs.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
Held: 1.1 Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the
same situation, and there should be no discrimination between
one person and another if as regards the subject matter of the
legislation their position is substantially the same. This brings in
the question of classification. As there is no infringement of the
equal protection rule, if the law deals alike with all of a certain
c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.