- FACTS
The Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State within the Reservation for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021 (henceforth referred to as “the 2021 Act”) came into force on February 26, 2021[1]. The Act was aimed at providing an internal reservation of 10.5 percent to the Vanniakula Kshatriya community (comprising Vanniyar, Vanniya, Vannia Gounder, Gounder or Kander, Padayachi, Palli, and Agnikula Kshatriya), categorized as “Part-MBC (V)” in relation to the 20 percent reservation quota for Most Backward Classes (MBCs) and Denotified Communities (DNCs).
This classification had been proposed by the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission in 2012, and it had also been proposed by Justice M.S. Janarthanam for providing reservation to the Vanniyar community separately. But before the commission constituted by the state government for collecting quantifiable information regarding castes, communities, and tribes (constituted in December 2020, headed by Justice A. Kulasekaran, Retd.) could come out with its report, the state government passed the Act on February 26, 2021. Writ petitions had been filed in the High Court of Madras challenging the constitutionality of this Act. The High Court found that the state government did not have legislative competence after the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018[2], that sub-classification of backward classes is not permissible in light of E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh[3], and hence struck down the Act. Special Leave Petitions had then been filed in the Supreme Court, which led to the decision of Civil Appeal No. 2600 of 2022 (along with several other related cases) on March 31, 2022, by Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai[4].
- ISSUES RAISED
The crucial issues raised by the Supreme Court in the case were:
(a) If the State Legislature had the competency to legislate on the 2021 Act post the enactment of the 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2018,[5] which on face of it took away the competence of the States in identifying backward classes and further the effect of 105th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021[6];
(b) If sub-classification of backward classes was permissible under the Constitution or if the argument put forward by E.V. Chinnaiah against the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes equally applied to backward classes;
(c) If the classification scheme lacked rationality and empirical validity and thus violated Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution; and
(d) Whether the caste criterion alone could be used for conferring the internal reservation in the backward class category.
- CONTENTION
Appellants’ (Pattali Makkal Katchi’s) Contention
The appellants submitted that the sub-classification of backward classes was definitely permissible, relying on Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)[7], which had expressly stated that backward classes can be further classified as backward and more backward in order to effectuate the principles of equal distribution. It was pointed out that the High Court erred in applying E.V. Chinnaiah—relating to Scheduled Castes under Article 341—to backward classes, as there is a completely different constitutional regime under Articles 15(4) and 16(4).
It was argued by the appellants that the permissibility of sub-classification is settled; the issue of reasonableness in structure is another matter. On the issue of data, it was argued that historical data from the 1985 Ambasankar Commission and the 2012 Janarthanam notes constituted enough, continuous evidence to prove that Vanniyars were especially depressed in comparison with other MBCs.
Respondents’ Contention
According to the respondents, the classification made according to the 2021 Act was entirely arbitrary and discriminatory to equals as it was an election-based arrangement and not welfare. In support of this argument, they quoted Col. A.S. Iyer v. V. Balasubramanyam (1980),[8] where they argued that if the State continued to find reasons for making such classifications, then public service reservation would become politics, which would rob Article 14 of meaning and substance.
The 10.5 percent set aside for a particular community out of the total 20 percent leaves only 9.5 percent for the remaining 115 castes falling under MBC and DNC categories. Without the existence of any recent data to differentiate the Vanniakula Kshatriya from other castes falling under MBC and DNC categories, the allotment of percentage violates the doctrine of equality.
- RATIONALE
There were many key points in the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, that separated the theoretical issue of legislative competence from the actual validity of the statute in question:
- On Legislative Competency
It was contended by the Supreme Court that the judgment delivered by the High Court was wrong since the state had legislative competence. In particular, the Supreme Court took into consideration the 105th Constitution amendment act of 2021[9], where the power of the state governments to make lists of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) has been reaffirmed. What is more, the Court stated that the process of determination of the internal reservation for the community within the list of Most Backward Classes is not a new “identification” that is banned in the original 102nd amendment.
- On the Permissibility of Sub-classification
The Court observed that E.V. Chinnaiah was concerned with the jurisdiction of the State Legislature with respect to classification of Scheduled Castes as defined in Article 341 of the Constitution of India into categories, which is an alteration of the Presidential list. The Court pointed out that “the problem of sub-classification of backward classes has already been settled by Indra Sawhney and it is crystal clear from the judgment of Indra Sawhney that backward classes can be sub-classified.” The Court reiterated that “there is no constitutional or legal bar to a State classifying the backward classes as backward and more backward.”
- On Reasonableness and Empirical Basis
Although the Court affirmed the legislative authority of the State, it rejected the internal reservation scheme for the Vanniyars as there was no empirical evidence to justify it at present times. It observed that there was no rational nexus between the classification made and its objective as “antiquated and unreliable statistics” were utilized by the State (the numbers from 1985 Ambasankar Committee report).
In this regard, the Court remarked that while caste may be considered as the initial focus to provide internal reservation, it is incumbent upon the State government to show that the sub-pooling is reasonable and that caste was not the only classification made.
- DEFECTS OF LAW
While the judgment is landmark in clarifying the permissibility of sub-classification, it reveals certain defects or ambiguities:
- Lack of Clear Guidelines Regarding Required Data: The decision fails to clearly state what should be regarded as appropriate “empirical data” or “quantifiable data.” The requirement by the Court that the State should use current data rather than old data is somewhat subjective and will not provide any clear guidelines for future legislative efforts at the state level.
- Permissible vs. Reasonable: Though the Court differentiates permissibility from reasonableness, the dividing line between the two is blurry at best. The decision fails to provide any yardsticks that could clarify when the use of caste may be permissible for intra-category sharing.
- Lack of Criteria for Caste-Based Classification for Internal Reservation: The judgment is silent regarding the criteria that need to be fulfilled along with the criterion of caste for the classification of internal reservation. No such criteria have been enumerated exhaustively by the court.
- Application to Past Cases: The decision does not consider the issue of whether the State can cure the defect (data gap) by dynamic means or whether they have to start afresh by conducting new surveys. This left a void in law as far as the administrative legality of education admissions and appointment to public services during the short duration the 2021 Act was operational is concerned.
- INFERENCE
The Supreme Court verdict in Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal is an elegant balancing act between the tenets of constitutional federalism and substantive equality. In affirming the legality of sub-classification while simultaneously declaring the 2021 Act invalid due to its lack of empirical basis, the Court has clearly stated that while states have legislative competence in formulating reservations within their own jurisdiction, this competence is not uncontrolled. It must be based on a reasonable justification and empirical evidence.
This verdict is far from the rigidity of the view taken by the High Court using the case of E.V. Chinnaiah and respects the Supreme Court’s remarks in the case of Indra Sawhney.
The Modern Constitutional Paradigm (2026 Perspective):
Understanding the complete evolution of the development of this doctrine is possible only when the PMK decision is read with the context of the change in history witnessed in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024).[10] In Davinder Singh, the Constitution Bench, comprising of seven judges, overruled the decision of E.V. Chinnaiah and applied the very same principle established in PMK that there are deep layers of deprivation within one homogeneous group to the Scheduled Castes.
In all, this decision sends across a message to State legislatures that any reservation policy based on specific communities needs to be substantiated with relevant contemporary empirical data establishing their relatively backward state. Additionally, the judgment indirectly implies that caste surveys need to be undertaken in order to form the basis of such constitutional sub-classification.
Moreover, this judgment emphasizes that although caste can be taken as a starting point in determining the relatively backward communities, it cannot stand alone. The State will have to prove that the classification is supported by other socio-economic parameters and the percentage of reservations is rationally related to the degree of backwardness. Thus, this decision further fortifies the constitutional doctrine against the potential misapplication of Article 15(4).
To conclude, Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal is a good example of the balance maintained by the Constitution between the State’s right to correct past wrongs and the duty of the courts to protect the Fundamental Rights and equality. It demonstrates that even social welfare laws, although being within the spirit of the Constitution, should not violate the basic tenet of rational sub-classification.
Name: Alena Sebastian
University; Sister Nivedita University, Kolkata
[1] Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions including Private Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State within the Reservation for the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021, No. 8 of 2021, T.N. Govt. Gaz. (Feb. 26, 2021) (India).
[2] The Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) Act, 2018 (India).
[3] E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 S.C.C. 394 (India).
[4] Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal, (2022) 7 S.C.C. 1 (India).
[5] The Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) Act, 2018 (India).
[6] The Constitution (One Hundred and Fifth Amendment) Act, 2021 (India).
[7] Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 477 (India).
[8] Col. A.S. Iyer v. V. Balasubramanyam, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 634 (India).
[9] The Constitution (One Hundred and Fifth Amendment) Act, 2021 (India).
[10] State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024 INSC 562 (India); see also 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1860 (India).