Tanvi Sinha
A petition filed by a student, C. V Gayathri via her father S. Viatheeswaran, challenges the 69% reservation quota given in Tamil Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of appointment or posts in Services under the State) Act 1993.
A three-judge bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan gave notice to the Tamil Nadu asking for a response within two weeks.
The petition alleges that the provision of the reservation is unconstitutional on grounds of the Indira Sawhney case which had stated that reservation is limited to 50% with exceptions to exceptional circumstances.
Section 4 of the act in question provided for 30% reservation to the Backward Classes, 20% for Most Backward Classes and denotified communities and 18% for Scheduled Castes and 1% for Scheduled Tribe, making a grand total of 69% reservation.
The petition alleged that the law had failed the test laid down in the Indira Sawhney case, of exceptional and extraordinary situations for bringing far-flung and remote areas’ populations into the mainstream under which the 50% rule could be relaxed.
Alongside to this petition, the Maharashtra SEBC Act of 2018 is also challenged undergrounds of reaching 65% and hence violating the Indira Sawhney test, with the SC putting a stay on the act in September 2020.