Supreme Court Sets Precedent on Internal Reservation: Declaring Tamil Nadu’s 2021 Act Unconstitutional in Pattali Makkal Katchi (S) v. A. Mayilerumperumal And Others

Introduction

The landmark case of Pattali Makkal Katchi (S) v. A. Mayilerumperumal And Others, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on March 31, 2022, addresses the constitutional validity of Tamil Nadu’s Special Reservation Act, 2021. The appellants, representing the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), challenged the reservation policy that earmarked a specific portion of reserved seats for the Vanniakula Kshatriya community within the broader category of Most Backward Classes (MBCs) and Denotified Communities (DNCs). Central to the dispute were issues surrounding legislative competence, caste-based classification, and compliance with constitutional provisions governing affirmative action and reservation policies.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court of Madras's decision, declaring Tamil Nadu’s Special Reservation Act, 2021, unconstitutional. The Court found that the act’s provision for internal reservation of 10.5% for the Vanniakula Kshatriya community within the existing 20% reservation for MBCs and DNCs was arbitrary and lacked a substantial basis. This classification based solely on caste violated Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination), and 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment) of the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, the Court held that the state legislature did not possess the legislative competence to enact such a statute without adhering to the constitutional requirements, despite arguments pertaining to Articles 31-B and 31-C.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively cited foundational cases that shaped the jurisprudence on reservation policies and caste-based classifications:

• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): Affirmed the constitutionality of reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) but emphasized that caste-based classifications must have a substantial basis and not be arbitrary.
• The Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. S.B. Kamble (1975): Explained the scope and limitations of Article 31-B, highlighting that while statutes in the Ninth Schedule are protected against challenges based on fundamental rights, amendments to such statutes do not automatically receive the same protection.
• E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. (2005): Addressed the intricacies of subclassification within backward classes, differentiating between OBCs and Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
• State of A.P. v. U.S.V. Balram (1972): Established the standard for judicial scrutiny of subjective opinions of the State in matters of reservation.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s legal reasoning was rooted in ensuring that reservation policies adhere to constitutional principles of equality and non-arbitrariness. Key points include:

• Legislative Competence: The Court examined whether the Tamil Nadu State Legislature had the authority to enact the 2021 Act under the relevant constitutional provisions. It concluded that while the State has broad powers to classify and provide reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4), any subclassification must be justified and not arbitrary.
• Classification Based on Substantial Differences: Drawing from Indra Sawhney, the Court emphasized that classifications must rest on substantial differences and not merely on caste alone. The internal reservation for Vanniakula Kshatriyas lacked sufficient justification beyond their caste affiliation.
• Data and Justification: The Supreme Court criticized the reliance on outdated data from the 1985 Ambasankar Commission report, emphasizing the necessity of contemporary and comprehensive data to substantiate subclassifications.
• Article 31-B and 31-C: The Court clarified that Article 31-B protects statutes in the Ninth Schedule only to the extent they were originally included. Amendments or related statutes not placed in the Ninth Schedule do not receive the same protection, thereby holding the 2021 Act outside the immunity granted to the 1994 Act.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for reservation policies across India:

• Strict Scrutiny of Subclassifications: States must ensure that any subclassification within reserved categories is based on up-to-date and comprehensive data, avoiding arbitrary or purely caste-based distinctions.
• Legislative Competence Reinforced: Reinforces the necessity for States to operate within their legislative competence, especially when modifying existing reservation frameworks.
• Strengthening Judicial Oversight: Empowers courts to more rigorously examine the rationale behind reservation subclassifications, ensuring they align with constitutional mandates.
• Preservation of Reservation Integrity: Prevents the dilution of reservation benefits through unjustified subclassifications, ensuring affirmative action remains targeted and effective.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 31-B of the Constitution

Article 31-B grants immunity to laws placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, protecting them from being challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution. However, this protection does not extend to amendments or related statutes not explicitly included in the Ninth Schedule.

Sub-classification within Reserved Categories

Sub-classification refers to the division of a broadly reserved category (like MBCs and DNCs) into smaller groups based on specific criteria, such as caste, to allocate a portion of the reserved seats to these subgroups.

Proportionate vs. Adequate Representation

Proportionate representation implies allocating reserved seats based strictly on the population percentage of a community. Adequate representation, as per judicial standards, considers multiple factors, including historical disadvantages and current representation levels, to ensure fairness and effectiveness of affirmative actions.

Legislative Competence

This refers to the authority granted to different levels of government (Union or State) by the Constitution to enact laws on specific subjects listed in the Seventh Schedule.

Internal Reservation

Internal reservation involves reserving a portion of reserved seats or positions for specific communities within a broader category (e.g., reserving 10.5% of the 20% MBC reservation specifically for the Vanniakula Kshatriya community).

Conclusion