No role in State’s quota choices, Centre tells SC

The Centre has advised the Supreme Court that it has no role in the alternatives made by the Tamil Nadu authorities with regard to the supply of reservation for particular castes or communities in State authorities jobs and admissions.

The Centre was responding to a petition difficult the constitutionality of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services below the State) Act of 1993, which supplies 69% reservation in the State.

The petitioner, Dinesh B., contended that the Tamil Nadu Legislature acted “outside its competence” by figuring out and classifying socially and educationally backward lessons (SEBCs), that too far in extra of the 50% restrict on quota laid down by a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in its judgment in the Indira Sawhney case.

The Centre, nevertheless, determined to undertake a hands-off method on the problem.

“The inclusion or exclusion of any caste/community in the State List of SEBCs is the subject matter of the State government, and the Government of India has no role in the matter,” the Centre mentioned in a 32-page affidavit.

It referred to the Constitution (One hundred and second Amendment) Act of 2018, which particulars the distinction in the process for inclusion or exclusion of castes and communities in the State List for SEBCs and the Central List.

“The energy to determine and specify SEBCs lies with Parliament solely with regards to the Central List. The State governments might have separate State Lists of SEBCs for offering reservation for recruitment to State providers or admissions in State authorities instructional establishments.

The castes or communities included in such State Lists might differ from these included in the Central List,” the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment defined in the affidavit.

Under the newly-inserted Article 342A of the Constitution (One hundred and second Amendment) Act of 2018, the President notifies the SEBCs in a State after session with the Governor.

On the opposite hand, the Parliament consists of or excludes SEBCs from the Central List.

T.N. seeks time

The case got here up for listening to earlier than a Bench, led by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, on Wednesday. Tamil Nadu sought time to file a response. The case has been adjourned to February 25.

The court docket agreed to listen to arguments on whether or not the Tamil Nadu case ought to be referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench. The five-judge Bench is scheduled to listen to a bunch of pleas questioning the validity of the Maratha reservation legislation of Maharashtra.

However, Tamil Nadu has objected to the tagging of this case with that of the Maharashtra reservation legislation or comparable legal guidelines of another State.

Senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, showing for Tamil Nadu, mentioned the State’s case ought to be heard individually.

“India is an amalgam of States with varied population, size, history, culture and social fabric. The circumstances and facts prevailing in Tamil Nadu are not the same or similar to [those in] any other State. Factual variations contributing to the grant of reservation need to be reckoned with differently for different States while deciding the question on its validity,” Tamil Nadu mentioned in a current affidavit.

The State argued that its legislation was protected below the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution from judicial assessment. Section 4 of the 1993 Act supplies 30% reservation to the Backward Classes, 20% for the Most Backward Classes and de-notified communities, 18% for the Scheduled Castes and 1% for the Scheduled Tribes.

“Tamil Nadu is a pioneer in the implementation of reservation in public employment and education. The policy of reservation has been in practice since 1921 in this State,” Tamil Nadu’s affidavit mentioned.