7/17, 16:00] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1284072777658449921?s=08 [7/17, 16:00] Sekarreporter 1: Submissions of Mr. Vijay Narayan, Advocate General of Tamil Nadu:

[7/17, 16:00] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1284072777658449921?s=08
[7/17, 16:00] Sekarreporter 1: Submissions of Mr. Vijay Narayan, Advocate General of Tamil Nadu:

  1. Article 15(5) of Constitution empowers the State to enact laws for advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. Exercising this constitutional power, State enactted legislation Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointment or Post in the Services under the State), Act 1993, providing for 69% reservation. Further this enactment would apply to all seats inclusive “All India seats”. In this back ground it is unnecessary to go into the question if the seats are surrendered or not or for that matter which authority is allotting the seats.
  2. AG justified the need for reservation of 69%, by pointing out that data of population as per 2011 census is that ST constitute only 1.2% and SC constitute 18% of Tamil Nadu’s population. After doing a detailed exercise State has enacted a Act providing for reservation of backward classes is 30% and Most Backward classes is 30%, therefore reservation is 69%. It was in the back ground in the year 1993 i.e more than 26 years ago, State Assembly enacted the aforesaid Act.
  3. Central Government in principal has agreed to State specific reservations, but has nuanced its stand in its pleadings that reservation to extent of 50% can be provided, but wrt to remaining 19% State is permitted to increased seats.
  4. This stand of Central Government is legally fallacious and factually impermissible. Further emphatically submitted that embrgo of 50% as stated in Indira Swaney’s case is inapplicable for the simple reason that Apex Court has held that in the event of State has material to justice reservation beyond 50% it can do so. Moreover, pendency of challenge to this Act, cannot be the reason to scale down reservation to 50%, as no interim orders are passed.

You may also like...