Munmun Kaur
Published On: February 23, 2022 at 11:21 IST
Recently, Senior Advocate Radhakrishnan appearing for the Petitioner in a matter connected with the Vanniyar Reservation controversy submitted that equality of opportunity allows discrimination with reason. Thus, justifying the Legislation in this matter.
The submission was made while a batch of Petitions challenging the Madras High Court Judgment declaring the 10.5% internal Reservation to the Vanniyar community under the existing 20% Reservation to Most Backward Classes by the Tamil Nadu Government as unconstitutional.
A Bench comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai was hearing the batch of Petitions.
Senior Advocate Radhakrishnan while referring to the Supreme Court Judgment in the Case of Barium Chemicals, submitted that erroneous conclusions were derived and assumptions were made that there was no data.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate P Willson appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu submitted that the Reservation allowed to the community was justified as in the Sattanathan Commission basic data used was census data. He further added, “We want to show the extensive assessment done in the Sattanathan Commission for the implementation of Reservation”.
Willson further informed the Court that the suggestion of the Chairman was followed. To which the Supreme Court questioned that when 7 members of the Committee don’t agree with the Chairman how can the State rely on such a report and how can a Commission unanimously decide.
The Senior Advocate Willson responded that the whole report was with the Government including the suggestions of the Chairman, and the dissenting arguments of the other members.
In addition, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan who was appearing for the Respondents submitted before the Apex Court that there was no consultation with the National Commission for Backward Classes, which is a mandate in the Constitution. He further argued that the said Legislation in question was brought on the grounds of 105th Amendment being retrospective, although neither the words of the 105th Amendment says so nor the provision refers to a prior date. Therefore, failing the basic test.
The Apex Court has asked the Counsel to conclude their arguments by February 23.