Chennai, Oct 2 (PTI) PMK founder Dr S Ramadoss, has justified the exclusive reservation of 10.5 per cent for Vanniyars. In his counter-affidavit filed in response to a batch of writ petitions and PILs challenging the reservation introduced by the previous AIADMK government early this year, Ramadoss said the statement of objects and reasons prefixing the Act 8 of 2021 spells out the irrefutable grounds leading to the decision of the State to provide reservation to seven Vanniyar communities, which has larger population in Tamil Nadu but not received adequate representation in education and appointments in government services.

The 68 DNC communities were so in the declared areas but were not in respect of areas other than those declared areas, whereas all the seven Vanniyar communities were grouped together for purpose of 10.5 per cent reservation as a single homogeneous group possessing the same traits of the Most Backward Class throughout the State.

Hence, no direct comparison can be made with the 10.5 per cent of reservation for the seven Vanniyar groups with any other groups, he claimed.

The petitioners could not attribute any political motive, malice or mala fide because the law providing the internal reservation to Vanniyars was passed in ahead of the Assembly elections held in April this year.

The very fact that the DMK, which succeeded the AIADMK to form government, had issued GOs to implement the provisions of the Special Act 8 of 2021 passed earlier, would defeat the contention, the counter said.

The allegation that the 10.5 per cent reservation had been made by the previous government for political gains on the eve of the then general election was nothing but a product of wild imagination and baseless assumption, the counter said.

A law could be challenged only on grounds of legislative competence or alleged violation of fundamental rights. The present petitioners could not succeed on either of the grounds since the State legislature was fully competent to pass the law and there was no violation of any fundamental right, it said.

Denying the contention that the law had been enacted hastily without waiting for the report of Justice A Kulasekaran committee, Ramadoss said the panel was constituted only to examine whether the overall reservation of 69 per cent required any modification and not to examine the issue of internal reservations for Vanniyars, he claimed.