Supreme Court has rightly said The Tamil Nadu Special Reservation Act of 2021, or Vanniyar Quota Act, repealed, on the grounds that this update was not based on quantitative data. The Act envisages the distribution of 20% quota in education and public employment to Most Backward Classes (MBCs) and Non-Notified Communities (DNCs), 10.5% to Vanniyar or Vanniyakula Kshatriya community, 7% to 25 MBCs and 68 allocated to was done. DNC, and 2.5% for the remaining 22 MBC. Even though a superficial look at the law gives the impression that not only Vanniyar but 115 other communities have been covered as well, the aspect of internal reservation for one community – Vanniyar – had created the impression of special treatment. Such behavior is not bad in law, as caste can be the starting point for identifying backward classes or providing internal reservation, although it cannot be the sole basis. Also, there should be relevant, contemporary data. The Court also pointed out that there was no analysis of relative backwardness and representation of other communities in MBC and DNC.
The Court’s decision has provided relief to many by saying that the State is competent to design sub-categorization among backward classes; Determine the quantum of reservation on the basis of such sub-categorization, and frame a subsidiary law, also with the concurrence of the Governor, for the one included in the Ninth Schedule. Despite the further steps of the DMK government defending the law in the Supreme Court, there are important lessons in this episode. No community should be allowed internal or exclusive reservation without making a case for it on the basis of quantitative data. Caste based census can help in determining the representation of different communities in public employment and education. After all, it is adequate representation that holds the key to the special treatment of reservation. But whether caste, a narrowly defined, and not a socio-economic indicator of applicants, should be the basis for reservation is another issue. Parties in Tamil Nadu should reconsider their position against the implementation of the creamy layer rule in reservation, otherwise there will always be demands for internal reservation from communities who feel deprived. If the parties truly believe in the principle of equality in reservation, then they should have no problem in agreeing to the concept of creamy layer. Also, the demand for reservation for the economically weaker sections of the caste groups not covered by reservation will continue if those seen as economically advanced continue to receive a substantial share of the reservation pie. The creamy layer should be excluded in providing reservation for castes that qualify as backward classes, other than SCs and STs.