In November 2021, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court quashed the special internal reservation sanctioned to Vanniyar community. The law was enacted in February 2021 by the then All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) led government. It provided 10.5 per cent reservation for Vanniyars in the public services and seats in educational institutions. The court declared the law as ultra vires to the Constitution. A division bench of Justices M Duraiswamy and K Murali Shankar, while passing the order, questioned the state government’s decision to provide special reservation to a particular most backward community (MBC) community without the backing of a caste-based census.
The demand for a special quota for Vanniyar community was raised by the chief ally of the AIADMK, Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) in December, 2020. In July 2021, the Supreme Court refused to the stay the Tamil Nadu state law and decided to hear the matter. Again on July 26, 2021, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), passed the 10.5 per cent quota for Vanniyars as soon as it came into power after the elections.
Vanniyars Thevars and Gounders are largely seen as Tamil Nadu’s socially and politically powerful communities. Vanniyars were one of the largest and most consolidated backward communities that had a consistency in retaining political representation from 1940s and 1950s. Vanniyars had been far ahead of other backward MBCs in the political representation. In the 1980s, the Vanniyar community staged state-wide agitations, demanding an exclusive 20 per cent reservation in the state and 20 per cent in the central services.
Even before the 1980 agitations, Vanniyars were numerically a strong party, enjoying political powers. Vanniyar had 10 MLAs each in the state assembly, during the 1950s. Kallars and Nadars are seen as communities that deserve much more attention than Vanniyars. However, those organised agitations in the 1980s along with the demands raised often in the later years have benefited Vanniyars at a much larger scale than the other communities.
Since 1931, Tamil Nadu has not carried out a caste census. The previous AIADMK government had appointed a commission headed by retired Judge, A Kulasekaran, to carry out the survey. The Kulasekaran Commission had proposed a one-day pilot survey in parts of the state on February 27 and 28, 2021. It asked for Rs 60 lakh from the previous AIADMK government to engage about 20,000 enumerators for the task. However, when it was under consideration, the notification for Assembly elections was issued. The government did not sanction that money. The term of the commission was not extended by the present DMK government after it ended in June, 2021.
The state passed the legislation without any quantifiable data on population, socio-educational status, and representation of the backward communities.
The Madras High Court stated that, the Sattanathan Commission, which submitted its report in 1970, had stated that the population of Vanniyars was high in the northern districts of Tamil Nadu in comparison to the southern districts. Under such circumstances, if 10.5 per cent reservation is given to Vanniyars all over the state, then it would prevent the other most backward castes (MBCs) in getting admissions in the educational institutions and securing government employments.
The government had relied upon the report of the chairman of the JA Ambasankar Commission (set-up in 1982 by the then MG Ramachandran government to provide information on backward classes of Tamil Nadu). However, that report too does not provide information as to whether Vanniyars are unable to compete with other MBCs.
The high court then received many petitions challenging the special reservation for Vanniyars, mostly representing and arguing the case of other MBC communities that were not considered for the reservation. The argument of those petitions was that a 10.5 per cent reservation for Vanniyars alone would have a huge impact on around 25 other MBC communities and 65 denotified communities (DNC). The 10.5 per cent reservations forms a part of the total 20 per cent quota for the entire MBCs. The petitions also argued that it would impact the harmony among the MBCs.
The high court, on July 29, 2021, said that it would take up pleas challenging the Vanniyar quota. However, on August 11, 2021, the judge withdrew himself from the case. On August, 25, 2021, the Madras HC refused to stay admissions and appointments that were done under the quota. Finally, on November 1, 2021, the high court quashed internal reservation for Vanniyar as unconstitutional on the following grounds:
- Competency of the state to provide reservation based on caste, whether reservation could be provided without quantifiable data on population, socio-educational status, and representation of the backward classes in services.
- The judges stated that the very basis of classification in the name of caste, is a clear case of treating equals unequally. This would result in reverse discrimination within the MBC. Thus, there was no authentic data available with the state before the introduction of the law to show the three different degrees of backwardness to make three sub-categories as mandated by Indra Sawhney’s case. Also, there is no data to show the inadequate representation of a group.
- The micro classification of the MBCs into MBC (Vanniyars), MBC Denotified Communities (DNC), and other MBCs was considered wholly arbitrary by the judges as there was no acceptable reason or material proof or data for this division.
- The judges said that, treating one caste (Vanniakula Kshtriya including: Vanniyar, Vanniya, Vanniya Gounder, Gounder, Padayachi, Palli, and angnikula Kshatriya) as a separate class, while treating the similar castes differently, is discrimination. Additionally, the new law had categorised six sub-castes and 115 other castes into two sets and tried to give higher proportion of reservation to one caste while depriving the others.
- More importantly, referring to the Union Government’s 102nd amendment denuding states of the power to include castes in reserved lists, the judges stated that the 102nd Amendment Act of the Constitution came into existence on August, 11, 2018, and the 105th Amendment Act of the Constitution was enacted on August 19, 2021. Furthermore, the impugned act 8 of 2021 came to be enacted on February 26, 2021, and therefore, the state legislature did not have the power to enact such legislation and nor did they have the power to pass the Impugned Act. Also, the state legislature has no competency to enact Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of seats in educational institutions including private educational institutions and appointments or posts in the services under the state within the reservation for the MBC and DNC Act, 2021.
- As per Article 31-B of the Constitution, until the act placed in the 9th Schedule is amended or repealed by the competent legislature, the said act shall continue to be in force. Therefore, without amending the 1993 Act, bringing a special legislation to provide internal reservation to Vanniyar community is against the constitutional provisions.
- The state counsel stated that quashing it would lead to trouble for the students who got admissions and those who secured jobs under the 10.5 per cent quota. In response the court stated that it was made clear through an interim order that admissions and appointments made providing the reservations would be subject to the outcome of the pleas. Suspending the order would only complicate the issue.
Reason for the political parties’ support for the special quota Both, the AIADMK and the DMK, had decided to go ahead with the special quota for Vanniyars with an eye on votes of the majority community for the two elections: the latest assembly polls for the then ruling party AIADMK, and the recent local body polls for the current DMK government. The AIADMK, PMK, and the ruling DMK knew that they needed a caste census to proceed with such a special quota implementation. The political parties did it in public perception. The AIADMK did it wooing the Vanniyar votes and the DMK implemented the order, as a denial approach would have turned the community against the ruling party.
The special quota decision is detrimental to state’s social justice values If political parties favour the special quota eying mere electoral gain, then they are not ensuring reservation for the underprivileged. In 1951, Tamil Nadu had 25 per cent reservation for OBCs and 16 per cent for SC/ST. The then DMK government under M Karunanidhi increased the OBC reservation to 30 per cent and SC/ST reservation to 18 per cent in 1971. Later, an exclusive 20 per cent reservation was carved out for MBC in 1989 that included the Vanniyars.
The current reservation break-up in Tamil Nadu comprises of 69 per cent. It includes: 30 per cent for BCs (including Christians and Muslims), 20 per cent for MBCs, 18 per cent for SCs and one per cent for ST community. The state’s powerful political parties decided to go against the unique social system by favouring one community alone with 10.5 per cent reservation within the MBC quota of 20 per cent. There were 115 communities in the MBC category, who were left to share the remaining 9.5 per cent reservation.
© Spectrum Books Pvt Ltd.