CHENNAI: Reservations are not poverty alleviation programmes but are more in the nature of social justice to uplift communities which have not had access to education or employment for centuries, says the DMK which has approached the Madras high court challenging the 10% reservation based on economic background brought in by the central government.
"Therefore, essentially, the exception to the equality clause is only available to those communities which were ostracised for centuries in matters of education and employment. However, economic criteria have been used as a filter to exclude the creamy layer, persons belong to the backward classes but who are economically advanced. Hence, application of economic criteria solely is not contemplated as an exception to the rule of equality, and consequently to provide reservation solely on economic criteria offends the basic structure of the Constitution," said DMK organising secretary R S Bharathi.
Moving the plea on behalf of the petitioner, senior counsel P Wilson said, "It’s well settled that the ceiling limit of 50% in reservation is also part of the basic structure and has been asserted by the Supreme Court in several cases. However, in Tamil Nadu, the ceiling limit is 69% due to the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993 which is placed in the IX Schedule. Hence, the reservation cannot be beyond 69% in the state. However, the recent amendments enable reservation to go up to 79% and the same are unconstitutional."
Contending that the power to amend the Constitution is subject to the limitation that the basic feature of the Constitution could not be destroyed by such amendments, Wilson added, “In so far as the reservation is concerned, as already stated, the 50% ceiling limit in other states and 69% in Tamil Nadu and the prohibition against prescribing economic status as the sole criterion for reservation have been held to be part of the basic feature.”
The petitioner wanted the court to pass an interim injunction against the operation of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 pending disposal of the plea.
The plea filed in the high court is likely to be taken up for hearing on Monday.