LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

VOICE (CONSUMER CARE) COUNCIL versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 647 · Decided: 14-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

VOICE (CONSUMER CARE) COUNCIL 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
AUGUST 14, 1996 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AN K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
(Reservation of Seats in Educational !11stitutio11s and of appointments orposts 
i11 the Services under the State) Act, 1993 : 
State of Tamil Nadu-Medical E11ginee1i11g and other Educational 
institutions-Extent of reservation-Rese1vatio11 in favour of backward classes, 
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tlibe~Removal of Glievance of general 
category candidates-Order directing creatio11 of additional seats passed by 
Supreme Cowt for academic year 1995-96-Another order passed for applica-
A 
B 
c 
tion of earlier order for academic year 1996-97-Application filed by State for D 
modification of order and seeking pennission to implemellt the provisions of 
1993 Act-State Govt. giving figures for academic years 1993-94 and 1994-
95-Date revealing that more than 80% seats in general category were taken 
by students of backward class 011 their own nierit-Held there w~ยท no reason 
to modify the eariier orde,-Heid earlier order only upheld the rule of 50'!1o 
reservation ceiling 011 reservation-It also operated to the benefit of a number E 
of backward class students. 
Indra Sawhney v. U11io11 of India, (1992] Supp. 3 SCC 217, referred 
to. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 
Interlocutory Application F 
No. 18 of 1996. 
IN 
Contempt Petition No. 79 of 1994. 
G 
IN 
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13526 of 1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.7.93 of the Madras High 
Court in W.P. No. 10016 of 1993. 
H 
647 
648 
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [1996]SUPP.4S.C.R. 
A 
V. Krishnamurthy for Applicant/State of Tamil Nadu. 
B 
c 
KV. Mohan, Shailendra Bhardwaj, A.F. Julian for Arputham, Aruna 
& Co., Ajit Kumar Sinha, R.N. Keshwani, M.A. Krishna Moorthy, A.T.M. 
Sampath, V. Balachandran, M.T. George, P. Parmeswaran and T.R. Raja 
for the Respondent/Opposite Side. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This application is filed by the State of Tamil Nadu requesting for 
modification of the Order dated July 22, 1996 and to permit the State 
Government to implement the provisions of the 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. 
By Order dated JUiy 22, 1996, this Court had directed inter alia that 
D 
"order dated 18.8.94 shall apply and continue to apply for the academic 
year 1996-97 as well." This direction was made because this Court was of 
the opinion that "the same order and directions which were made for the 
academic year 1995-96 with respect to the extent of reservation in the 
matter of ad1nission to Medical, Engineering and other educational institu-
E 
tions in Tamil Nadu shall be continued this year also." 
The purport of tht Order dated August 18, 1994 is this : 
First, make the admissions applying the rule of 69% reservation in 
favour of Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 
F Second, the additional seats created by virtue of the Orders of this Court 
be filled with the general category candidates. The number of seats so 
created was equal to the number of seats which the general candidates 
would have got if the rule of fifty percent total reservation had been 
applied. 
G 
This order in effect respected the rule of 69 per cent devised by the 
Government of Tamil Nadu-and sanctioned by Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994 
- while, at the same time, removing the grievance of the general category 
candidates by creating additional seats for them for that year. In other 
words, the sanctioned strength of seats in every college are being allotted 
H exclusively in accordance with the sixty nine percent reservation rule. Only 
-
VOICE (CONSUMER CARE) COUNCIL v. STATE 
649 
the additional seats, which -are created by and only because of the Orders A 
of this Court are being provided to general category candidates on the basis 
of merit, which category includes Backward Clauses, Scheduled Castes and 
Scheduled Tribes as well. It is significant to notice in this connection that 
according to the figures supplied by the Government of Tamil Nadu for 
the Academic Years 1993-94 and 1994-95, more than eighty percent of the B 
seats in the general category are being taken aw~y by the students belong-
ing to Backward Classes on the basis of their own merit. As fully explained 
and illustr

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