Madras HC declares Vanniyar reservation law unconstitutional

Tamil Nadu enacted law to provide 10.5% internal reservation to Vanniakula Kshatriya community within the 20% earmarked for Most Backward Classes

Updated - November 01, 2021 11:23 am IST

Published - November 01, 2021 11:20 am IST - CHENNAI

Strong demand: In December 2020, the PMK launched an agitation demanding a quota for Vanniyars. B. Jothi Ramalingam JOTHI RAMALINGAM B

Strong demand: In December 2020, the PMK launched an agitation demanding a quota for Vanniyars. B. Jothi Ramalingam JOTHI RAMALINGAM B

The Madras High Court on Monday declared as unconstitutional a law passed by the Tamil Nadu legislature providing 10.5% internal reservation to Vanniakula Kshatriya community within the 20% earmarked for Most Backward Classes (MBCs) in education and public employment.

Justices M. Duraiswamy and K. Murali Shankar allowed a batch of writ petitions filed in the principal seat of the High Court as well as its Madurai Bench challenging the validity of the law passed just hours before the model code of conduct came into force in the State in February for the Assembly election.

Post election, the incumbent government led by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam too had given effect to the law in admission to colleges.

In a counter affidavit filed before the Madras High Court in response to a huge batch of cases that had challenged the law, the government termed as “baseless” the charge that there was a political motive behind the enactment and that the law was passed hastily, before the notification of the Assembly elections this year, in violation of the Legislative Assembly rules.

“In a democratic polity, an elected government cannot be barred from exercise of its power to make a policy to legislate any law during its tenure/until the last minute it holds power to meet the public opinion at large,” the government said and pointed out that one C.N. Ramamurthy had filed a writ petition in the High Court in 2010 itself seeking internal reservation.

Thereafter, the process of consultation for sub classification within the 20% earmarked for MBCs began on June 13, 2012 when the then chairman of Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Commission recommended 10.5% reservation for Vanniakula Khastriya (including Vanniar, Vanniya, Vannia Gounder, Gounder or Kander, Padayachi, Palli and Agnikula Kshatriya) community.

Such recommendation was made by relying upon door-to-door enumeration conducted by the second Tamil Nadu BC Commission in 1983 when the population of Vanniakula Kshatriyas was found to be 65.04 lakh (13.01%) out of the State’s total population of 4.99 crore. Therefore, provision of 10.5% reservation to a community with a population of 13.01% could not be called disproportionate, the government said.

Though the members of the BC Commission in 2013 had dissented with the recommendation made by the chairman, the government, before taking a policy decision in February this year, called for the opinion of the incumbent chairman of the commission and he too, in a letter written to the government on February 26, 2021, recommended 10.5% internal reservation to Vanniakula Khastriyas, the court was told.

On the ground raised by the writ petitioners that the law had been passed even before submission of a report by a Commission constituted on December 21, 2020 under the chairmanship of retired High Court judge A. Kulasekaran to collect quantifiable data on castes, communities and tribes in the State within six months, the government said the commission did not submit any report within its tenure.

The government also said that “it is a myth” to claim that the internal reservation to Vanniakula Kshatriyas had affected other communities falling under MBC. Stating that the law under challenge categorises other MBCs and denotified communities too and provides 7% and 2.5% reservation for them too, the government said: “As such it cannot be claimed that only the Vanniakula Kshatriya have been favoured by this enactment.”

Further, asserting that the government was empowered to pass such a law for providing internal reservation, it referred to a 2007 enactment through which Backward Class Muslims in the State were being actively provided separate reservation. The counter affidavit was served on all counsel including advocate K. Balu of Pattali Makkal Katchi who wanted to get impleaded and support the law.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.