SC disposes interlocutory petition on TN’s 69 pc quota
At a time when the reservation related issues are making headlines in poll bound Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice R Subhash Reddy has disposed an interlocutory application challenging the 69 per cent reservation policy of TN and the Tamil Nadu Act 1993 enabling reservation status for BCs and MBCs.
The interim move had brought respite for the government department officials who had been camping in Delhi for the high profile case represented and argued by a battery of senior lawyers practising in Supreme Court. “The petitioners had been contending that the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission’s report (Amba Shankar Report) dated July 8, 2011 justifying 69 per cent reservation on the basis of data of the year 1985 as “unsustainable and “unconstitutional”. The recent GO enabling 10.5 percent reservation for vanniyars is also based on the 69 percent reservation policy. The judgement was in favour of the state policy and now we have to face the petitions as separate cases, after the constitution bench decides on TN state act 1993, until then the other petitions have to wait,” explained a government official.
The minor petitioner represented by her father S Vaitheeswaran prayed that the present writ petitions be tagged and heard along with Civil Appeal No.3123 of 2020 which has been referred to the Constitution Bench to deal with the reservation policies. Already there is a bundle of litigations pending in this regard and there was a prayer before the Supreme Court seeking clubbing of the reservation related cases as the matters related to the Maharashtra reservation act and TN BC MBC reservation Act 1993 is pending before the constitutional bench, informed sources said.
In case of TN act, there is a database on which the policy has been rolled out and it was prayed that the individual petitions be heard separately and not to club with the petitions being heard by the larger bench. According to order copy, “Senior counsels Kabil Sibal, Maninder Singh, Meenakshi Arora submitted that issues which have been raised in these writ petitions have bearing on the questions which have been referred to the larger Bench, hence, it is appropriate that these petitions be heard along with civil appeals No.3123 of 2020. Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel appearing for Tamil Nadu government opposed the submissions of the applicant, submitting that Tamil Nadu, 1993 Act is concerned that has special protection under Article 31B of the Constitution, subsequent to Judgment dated 16.11.1992 in “Indra Sahwney Vs. Union of India” (1992) and submitted that the writ petitions need not to be heard along with Civil Appeal No.3123 of 2020 and these writ petitions be listed after the Constitution Bench Judgment in Civil Appeal No.3123 of 2020. copy.
“After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that these petitions need not be heard along with Civil Appeal No.3123 of 2020 and be listed after the judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.3123 of 2020,” the apex court bench said disposing the interlocutory application.