Tamil Nadu's 2021 special reservation law within backward classes struck down for violating equality principles despite legislative competence

The SC upheld Tamil Nadu's legislative competence to enact the 2021 Act providing special reservation within backward classes, ruling that the 105th Amendment was prospective and the 102nd Amendment governed at enactment. The Court held sub-classification among backward classes is permissible under Article 342-A, and the 1994 Act's inclusion in the Ninth Schedule doesn't restrict ancillary legislation. However, the Court struck down the Act for violating Articles 14, 15, and 16, finding no substantial basis for differentially treating one community group from the remaining 115 communities within MBCs and DNCs.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature in Enacting the 2021 Act.
2. Permissibility of Sub-classification Amongst Backward Classes.
3. Bar on Competence Under Article 31-B of the Constitution.
4. Effect of the 1994 Act Receiving Presidential Assent Under Article 31-C of the Constitution.
5. Caste-based Classification.
6. Scrutiny of the Report of Thanikachalam, J. and Constitutional Validity of the 2021 Act.
7. Non-compliance with Article 338-B(9) of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

I. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature in Enacting the 2021 Act

The Tamil Nadu Special Reservation Act, 2021 was challenged for its constitutionality. The High Court declared it unconstitutional, citing the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018, which ousted the State's power to identify backward classes. The Supreme Court held that the 105th Amendment Act, 2021, which restored the State's power, was prospective. The 2021 Act dealt with sub-classification and was permissible under Article 342-A as per the judgment in Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil. The identification of MBCs and DNCs was already completed under the 1994 Act. Thus, the State had legislative competence to enact the 2021 Act.

II. Permissibility of Sub-classification Amongst Backward Classes

The High Court, relying on E.V. Chinnaiah, held that sub-classification of backward classes was impermissible. The Supreme Court disagreed, citing Indra Sawhney, which allowed sub-classification of backward classes. The Court clarified that sub-classification of backward classes is permissible, provided it is reasonable and not solely based on caste.

III. Bar on Competence Under Article 31-B of the Constitution

The High Court held that the 2021 Act conflicted with the 1994 Act, which was placed in the Ninth Schedule. The Supreme Court found no merit in this, stating that Article 31-B does not restrict the State's legislative power. The State can enact laws on matters ancillary to the 1994 Act. The 2021 Act, detailing the extent of reservation, did not conflict with the 1994 Act.

IV. Effect of the 1994 Act Receiving Presidential Assent Under Article 31-C of the Constitution

The High Court opined that the 2021 Act required Presidential assent as the 1994 Act had it under Article 31-C. The Supreme Court held that the absence of Presidential assent does not affect the State's legislative competence. The State can decide whether a law should receive the protection of Article 31-C. The 2021 Act, being ancillary to the 1994 Act, did not require Presidential assent.

V. Caste-based Classification

The High Court held that the 2021 Act's internal reservation for Vanniakula Kshatriyas was solely based on caste, violating Articles 14, 15, and 16. The Supreme Court agreed that while caste can be a starting point, it cannot be the sole basis for reservation. The State must justify the reasonableness of the sub-classification and demonstrate that caste is not the only criterion.

VI. Scrutiny of the Report of Thanikachalam, J. and Constitutional Validity of the 2021 Act

The High Court found no quantifiable data supporting the 2021 Act. The Supreme Court scrutinized the reports of the Janarthanam and Thanikachalam Commissions. The Janarthanam Commission's recommendation was based on outdated data from 1985. The Thanikachalam Commission's report lacked independent evaluation and relied solely on population data, which is insufficient. The Supreme Court held that the 2021 Act, based on these flawed reports, was unconstitutional.

VII. Non-compliance with Article 338-B(9) of the Constitution

The High Court noted that the State did not consult the National Commission for Backward Classes before enacting the 2021 Act, violating Article 338-B(9). The Supreme Court agreed that consultation was mandatory, but the non-compliance did not affect the State's legislative competence. However, the 2021 Act was already found unconstitutional on other grounds.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, declaring the 2021 Act unconstitutional. The Act violated Articles 14, 15, and 16 as it was based on outdated data and population alone. The State had legislative competence to enact the 2021 Act, but the classification and reservation provided were unreasonable and discriminatory. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.

---