Supreme Court Delays Tamil Nadu's Quota Review, Awaits Landmark Presidential Reference Verdict

In a pivotal moment for reservation politics in India, the Supreme Court has unequivocally told the Tamil Nadu government that it must patiently await the verdict of a seven-judge bench on a crucial Presidential Reference. This decision effectively puts on hold the state's urgent plea to review an earlier ruling that struck down its contentious 10.5% internal reservation for the Vanniyar community within the Most Backward Classes (MBC) category.

The bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S V N Bhatti, remained firm despite spirited arguments from senior advocate P Wilson, representing Tamil Nadu.

Wilson contended that the state's review petition against the quashing of the Vanniyar quota by the Madras High Court (a decision upheld by the Supreme Court) should proceed independently. He highlighted that the Presidential Reference primarily concerns Article 342-A, which deals with Parliament's power to identify socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs), whereas Tamil Nadu's law was enacted under other constitutional provisions, specifically Article 340, which empowers the President to appoint a commission to investigate conditions of SEBCs.

However, the apex court bench was unconvinced, emphasizing the broader implications.

Justice Khanna pointed out the inherent challenge: "The Presidential Reference involves a substantial question of law regarding the scope of Parliament's power to make laws with respect to reservation for socially and educationally backward classes.

Once the seven-judge bench has reserved judgment, we cannot revisit the issue." This stance underscores the judiciary's careful approach to fundamental constitutional questions that could redefine legislative boundaries.

The origin of this significant Presidential Reference lies in a petition filed by the Union government.

This came after a landmark Supreme Court judgment that invalidated a Maharashtra law providing reservation to the Maratha community. The Union government sought clarity on the extent of Parliament's powers under Article 342-A, especially concerning the identification and enumeration of SEBCs. The seven-judge bench, which has already heard extensive arguments from various stakeholders, reserved its verdict on May 2 this year, signaling the nearing conclusion of this monumental legal deliberation.

For Tamil Nadu, the outcome of this Presidential Reference is not merely an academic exercise; it carries profound practical consequences for its reservation policies.

The Supreme Court's original decision to quash the Vanniyar internal quota was based on the Madras High Court's finding that the 10.5% reservation was not supported by quantifiable data on the community's backwardness or its share in the MBC population. The impending judgment from the larger bench is expected to provide definitive guidance on the legal framework governing reservations for SEBCs, directly impacting the validity and future of such state-specific quotas across India.

As the legal chess game unfolds, the message from the Supreme Court is clear: the foundational constitutional questions at play are paramount.

Tamil Nadu, along with other states grappling with similar reservation challenges, must now hold its breath, awaiting a judgment that promises to reshape the landscape of affirmative action in the country.