Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
VOICE (CONSUMER CARE) COUNCIL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/08/1996
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (7) 234 1996 SCALE (5)806
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This application is filed by the State of Tamil Nadu
requesting for modification of the Order dated July 22, 1996
and to permit the State Government to implement the
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled
Classes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in
Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the
Services under the State) Act, 1993.
By Order dated July 22, 1996, this Court had directed
inter alia that "order dated 18.8.94 shall apply and
continue to apply for the academic year 1996-97 as well."
This direction was made because this Court was of the
opinion that "the same order and directions which were made
for the academic year 1995-96 with respect to the extent of
reservation in the matter of admission to Medical,
Engineering and other educational institutions in Tamil Nadu
shall be continued this year also."
The purport of the Order dated August 18, 1994 is this:
First make the admissions applying the rule of 69%
reservation in favour of Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes. Second, the additional seats created
by virtue of the Orders of this Court be filled with the
general category candidates. The number of seats so created
was equal to the number of seats which the general
candidates would have got if the rule of fifty percent total
reservation had been applied.
This order in effect respected the rule of 69 per cent
devised by the Government of Tamil Nadu - and sanctioned by
Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994 - while, at the same time,
removing the grievance of the. general category candidates
by creating additional seats for them for that year. In
other words, the sanctioned strength of seats in every
college are being allotted exclusively in accordance with
the sixty nine percent reservation rule. Only the additional
seats, which are created by and only because of the Orders
of this Court are being provided to general category
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
candidates on the basis of merit, which category includes
Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as
well. It is significant to notice in this connection that
according to the figures supplied by the Government of Tamil
Nadu for the Academic Years 1993-94 and 1994-95, more than
eighty percent of the seats in the general category are
being taken away by the students belonging to Backward
Classes on the basis of their own merit. As fully explained
and illustrated in the Order dated August 18, 1794, the
students belonging to Backward Classes are getting fifty
percent of the total seats on the basis of reservation and
more than 80 per cent of the seats in the general category
[open competition category] on the basis of their own merit.
There is no reason to believe that the situation is
different this year. Thus, the bulk of the additional seats
directed to be created by this Court year after year (since
1994-95) are again going to students belonging to Backward
Classes. The Order of this Court is thus not only upholding
the rule of fifty percent ceiling on reservation affirmed by
the Special Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of
India [1992 Suppl. (3) S.C.C.217] but is in truth operating
to the advantage and benefit of a number of Backward Class
student Many of the Backward Class students, along with
certain other candidates belonging to non-reserved
categories, who would not have otherwise got admission into
these courses, are getting seats by virtue of these Orders.
And yet it is surprising to note that the Government of
Tamil Nadu has chosen to ask for modification of the order
dated July 22, 1996. The said order is only interlocutory in
nature. Pending decision of the several constitutional and
legal questions raised in these matters, it was supposed to
be an equitable order harming no one. If at all, it
benefitted some who would not have been able to obtain
admission otherwise and surely that fact cannot be a ground
of grievance for the State of Tamil Nadu. Only as an interim
measure, certain additional seats are being created and they
are being allotted to general category candidates - which
Tamil Nadu really means providing the bulk of them to
students belonging to Backward Classes.
We do not wish to refer to or comment upon several
averments made in this application with respect to the
alleged negligence and inaction of the previous Government
of Tamil Nadu nor with the other submissions mentioned
therein since none of them are really relevant for the
purposes of this application. The main argument before us
was based upon the aforesaid Tamil Nadu Act and its
inclusion in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution. We have
already dealt with the said argument. Accordingly, we see no
reason to modify our order dated July 22, 1996. IA is
dismissed.
It shall be open to the State of Tamil Nadu to request
the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for an early posting
of these matters, which have already been referred to the
Constitution Bench.