<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday declared a 2021 Tamil Nadu law on internal reservation of 10.5 per cent in jobs and education to the 'Vanniyar' community under the most backward classes category as ultra vires of the fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination on the basis of caste.</p>.<p>The top court, however, held that there is no bar to the sub-classification amongst backward classes, and it is a permissible exercise of power by the state government. </p>.<p>It found that the law was passed on "superficial or illusory" basis in the absence of updated caste wise data.</p>.<p>"There is no infringement of the equal protection rule, if the law deals alike with all of a certain class, the legislature has the undoubted right of classifying persons and placing those whose conditions are substantially similar under the same rule of law, while applying different rules to persons differently situated. The classification should never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It must rest always upon real and substantial distinction," a bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai said.</p>.<p>The bench held that there is no substantial basis for classifying the 'Vanniakula Kshatriyas' into one group to be treated differentially from the remaining 115 communities within the most backward classes and denotified communities.</p>.<p>"Therefore, the 2021 Act is in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution," it said. </p>.<p><strong>Also Read — <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/legal-notice-to-jai-bhim-team-for-showing-vanniyars-in-poor-light-1051172.html" target="_blank">Legal notice to 'Jai Bhim' team for showing Vanniyars in 'poor light'</a></strong></p>.<p>The top court upheld the November 1, 2021 judgment of the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court, which had declared the 'Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and Appointments or Posts in Services under the State within the Reservation for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021' as ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution. It, however, disagreed with the High Court's view on competence of a state legislature to pass such a law.</p>.<p>Referring to Indra Sawhney judgment (nine-judge, 1992), the bench said while caste can be the starting point for providing internal reservation, it is incumbent on the state government to justify the reasonableness of the decision and demonstrate that caste is not the sole basis. </p>.<p>The court said the Tamil Nadu government "committed an error" in accepting the recommendations of Justice Thanikachalam, Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission, which formed the basis of the 2021 Act.</p>.<p>It pointed out there was a clear lapse on the part of Justice Thanikachalam for having dismissed the reservations expressed by the majority members of the Janarthanam Commission, who had noted the absence of updated caste-wise data, on the internal reservation. </p>.<p>Justice Thanikachalam also did not refer to any analysis or assessment of the relative backwardness and representation of the communities within the MBCs and DNCs.</p>.<p>Besides, "Population has been made the sole basis for recommending internal reservation for the Vanniakula Kshatriyas, which is directly in the teeth of the law laid down by this court (in Indra Sawhney and Jarnail Singh cases)," the bench said in appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu government, political party PMK and others.</p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday declared a 2021 Tamil Nadu law on internal reservation of 10.5 per cent in jobs and education to the 'Vanniyar' community under the most backward classes category as ultra vires of the fundamental rights to equality and non-discrimination on the basis of caste.</p>.<p>The top court, however, held that there is no bar to the sub-classification amongst backward classes, and it is a permissible exercise of power by the state government. </p>.<p>It found that the law was passed on "superficial or illusory" basis in the absence of updated caste wise data.</p>.<p>"There is no infringement of the equal protection rule, if the law deals alike with all of a certain class, the legislature has the undoubted right of classifying persons and placing those whose conditions are substantially similar under the same rule of law, while applying different rules to persons differently situated. The classification should never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. It must rest always upon real and substantial distinction," a bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and B R Gavai said.</p>.<p>The bench held that there is no substantial basis for classifying the 'Vanniakula Kshatriyas' into one group to be treated differentially from the remaining 115 communities within the most backward classes and denotified communities.</p>.<p>"Therefore, the 2021 Act is in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution," it said. </p>.<p><strong>Also Read — <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/legal-notice-to-jai-bhim-team-for-showing-vanniyars-in-poor-light-1051172.html" target="_blank">Legal notice to 'Jai Bhim' team for showing Vanniyars in 'poor light'</a></strong></p>.<p>The top court upheld the November 1, 2021 judgment of the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court, which had declared the 'Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and Appointments or Posts in Services under the State within the Reservation for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021' as ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution. It, however, disagreed with the High Court's view on competence of a state legislature to pass such a law.</p>.<p>Referring to Indra Sawhney judgment (nine-judge, 1992), the bench said while caste can be the starting point for providing internal reservation, it is incumbent on the state government to justify the reasonableness of the decision and demonstrate that caste is not the sole basis. </p>.<p>The court said the Tamil Nadu government "committed an error" in accepting the recommendations of Justice Thanikachalam, Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission, which formed the basis of the 2021 Act.</p>.<p>It pointed out there was a clear lapse on the part of Justice Thanikachalam for having dismissed the reservations expressed by the majority members of the Janarthanam Commission, who had noted the absence of updated caste-wise data, on the internal reservation. </p>.<p>Justice Thanikachalam also did not refer to any analysis or assessment of the relative backwardness and representation of the communities within the MBCs and DNCs.</p>.<p>Besides, "Population has been made the sole basis for recommending internal reservation for the Vanniakula Kshatriyas, which is directly in the teeth of the law laid down by this court (in Indra Sawhney and Jarnail Singh cases)," the bench said in appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu government, political party PMK and others.</p>.<p><strong>Watch the latest DH Videos here:</strong></p>