The Supreme Court has rightly quashed the Tamil Nadu Special Reservation Act of 2021, or the Vanniyar quota law, on the ground that it was not based on updated quantifiable data. The Act had envisaged the distribution of the 20% quota for Most Backward Classes (MBC) and De-notified Communities (DNCs) in education and public employment by assigning 10.5% to Vanniyars or the Vanniyakula Kshatriya community, 7% for 25 MBCs and 68 DNCs, and 2.5% for the remaining 22 MBCs. Even though a superficial look at the law would give an impression that not just the Vanniyars but also 115 other communities have been covered, the aspect of internal reservation for one community — Vanniyars — had created the impression of special treatment. Such treatment per se is not bad in law, as caste, the Court said, can be the starting point for the identification of backward classes or providing internal reservation, though it cannot be the sole basis. Also, there must be pertinent, contemporaneous data. The Court also pointed out that no analysis had been made of the relative backwardness and representation of other communities in the MBCs and DNCs.
The Court’s decision has provided relief to many by holding that the State is competent to design sub-classification among backward classes; prescribe the quantum of reservation based on such sub-classification, and formulate an ancillary law, even with the assent of the Governor, to one included in the Ninth Schedule. Regardless of further moves by the DMK government that had defended the law in the Supreme Court, this episode has important lessons. No community should be allowed internal or exclusive reservation without making a case for it on the basis of quantifiable data. A caste-based census can help in determining the representation of various communities in public employment and in education. After all, it is adequate representation that holds the key for the special treatment of reservation. But whether caste, narrowly defined, and not the socio-economic indicators of the applicants, should be the basis for reservation is another issue. Tamil Nadu’s parties must take a relook at their position against the implementation of creamy layer rule in reservation, as otherwise there will always be demand for internal reservation from communities that feel left out. If the parties believe genuinely in the principle of equity in reservation, they should not have any problem in agreeing to the concept of creamy layer. Also, the demand for reservation for the economically weaker sections among the caste groups not covered by reservation will carry on if those seen as economically advanced continue to obtain a larger share of the reservation pie. Other than for the SCs and STs, the creamy layer must be excluded in providing for reservation for castes that qualify as backward classes.
