Judgment :- THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE This is a pro bono publico filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy, a renowned politician and statesman, seeking an appropriate Writ directing the respondents 1 to 6 to create seats in Arts and Science courses, professional colleges and other institutions such as Polytechnics and Industrial Technical Institutes, over and above the sanctioned strength, to enable the Sri Lankan Tamil refugee students in Tamil Nadu for getting admissions into those institutions for the academic year 2003 - 2004 also as has been done for the past several years i.e. from the year 1984 onwards, without adversely affecting the regular intake of Indian students and also students for whom reservation has been available under Article 15 of Indian Constitution. 2. The respondents are all Governmental officers representing various departments of the Government of Tamil Nadu like Law, Higher Education, Health and Family Welfare, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Labour and Employment and Public Departments. 3. The petitioner, appearing in person, espouses the cause of Sri Lankan Tamils, living here as refugees, in the matter relating to education and for special allocation of seats for the students of the said Sri Lankan refugee community. 4. Hitherto, from the year of their taking shelter in this part of the country, the Sri Lankan students were being granted a special facility by carving out some seats in the colleges, be it professional or non-professional. There was some litigation before this Court relating to the validity of reservations in educational institutions and particularly those imparting technical/professional education. In INDRA SAWHNEY v. UNION OF INDIA ( AIR 1993 S.C. 477 ), the Supreme Court has limited the reservation to the maximum of 50% directing the balance of 50% to be kept open for Open Category. Of course, the Supreme Court did say that in rarest of rare cases, some excess over 50% may be permitted but that should be exceptional. Government of Tamil Nadu had enacted 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, (Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994) providing for 69% reservation as mentioned below: OC 31% BC 30% MBC & Denotified Communities 20% SC 18% ST 1% 5. The above Act is under challenge before the Supreme Court and the case is still pending adjudication. The above Act is under challenge before the Supreme Court and the case is still pending adjudication. Apart from the said reservation, the Government of Tamil Nadu had provided reservation to other categories like children born of inter-caste marriage etc. But the same was set at naught by a larger Bench of this Court in AARTHI M. (minor) v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU ( 2002 (4) CTC 449 ). It has been categorically held that the reservation which the Government has provided by enacting the above Act of Tamil Nadu, exhausted the power of the Government to make any further reservation and that Physically Handicapped, Eminent Sportsmen and Children of freedom fighters and ex-servicemen can be provided the facility of reservation but the same has to be only horizontal and not vertical. It is stated that this judgment is under challenge before the Supreme Court but no stay has been granted. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O. Ms. No.198 Higher Education (J-1) Department, dated 30.5.2003 giving effect to the judgment of the larger Bench of this Court in AARTHI's case (supra). In the process, the seats, which were reserved for Sri Lankan refugee students, be it medical or engineering etc. have also been discontinued. The said act of discontinuance on the part of the State Government is the main cause of action for the institution of this writ petition. 6. Dr. Subramanian Swamy has made the following submissions: (i) that he is not opposing the ratio laid down by this Court in AARTHI's case (supra) but he is supporting the above judgment; (ii) that the Government has misconstrued the above judgment that this Court directed the discontinuance of reservation for Sri Lankan refugee students and as such, the reservation to Sri Lankan refugee students has been discontinued; and (iii) he is seeking the continuance of reservation of seats in educational institutions for Sri Lankan refugee students not under Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, which is applicable to Indian citizens, but under the provisions of Article 51 read with Article 253 of Indian Constitution. 7. 7. Article 51 of the Indian Constitution reads, "The State shall endeavour to- (a) promote international peace and security; (b) maintain just and honourable relations between nations; (c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another; and (d) encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration." 8. Article 253 of the Indian Constitution reads, "Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conference, association or other body." 9. Due to ethnic violence in Sri Lanka in 1983 a large number of Sri Lankan refugees started arriving India. Various concessions to these refugees were provided on humanitarian grounds, both by the Government of India and by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Among those concessions reservation of seats to children of refugees in educational institutions was given. The entire expenditure on providing these facilities to Sri Lankan refugees was borne by the Government of India. The policy of the Government of India was to provide these facilities purely on humanitarian considerations, and these refugees are kept in relief camps with the ultimate object of their repatriation to Sri Lanka as soon as the situation in Sri Lanka becomes conducive for such repatriation. Pursuant to the above policy of the Government of India, the Tamil Nadu Government was extending such facilities. We are now concerned only with the Educational facilities. These facilities were not blanket in nature. Certain conditions were enumerated in availing said facilities, and even after complying with the said formalities, the facilities were not extended permanently, but were reviewed on yearly basis. The first of the communication by the Government of India formulating the above policy was in the year 1988, and it was specifically mentioned that the same was applicable only for the academic year 1988-89, and that yearly review will be made. Then, it was further extended by the communications issued by the Government of India dated 13.07.1989, 12.03.1990, and 19.04.1991 for the academic years 1989-90, 1990-91, and 1991-92, respectively. Then, it was further extended by the communications issued by the Government of India dated 13.07.1989, 12.03.1990, and 19.04.1991 for the academic years 1989-90, 1990-91, and 1991-92, respectively. In June 1992, the subject in issue was further reviewed, and keeping in view of the relevant factors, including the prospects of repatriation of the refugees, it was decided by the Government of India that the above facility need not be extended during the academic year 1992-93, and the same situation prevailed even thereafter, and in result there had been no policy of the Government of India to extend the facility from the academic year 1992-93 onwards. The same is the position as on today. 10. In consequence of the discontinuance of the facility by the Government of India from 1992 onwards, the Government of Tamil Nadu has also discontinued such facilities. But, the Government of Tamil Nadu on its own resumed extension of the said facilities again from the year 1996, and continued the same till the academic year 2002-2003, but discontinued from the academic year 2003-2004 onwards. 11. As rightly contended by Dr.Subramanian Swamy the continuance or discontinuance of reservation for Sri Lankan refugee students does not have any relation to the reservation provided for citizens in Article 15 of the Constitution of India. In fact, he has fairly submitted that without affecting the citizens-students, be it open category or reservation, the special reservation, which is sought for, is for non-citizens i.e., Sri Lankan refugee students on humanitarian grounds, and that extra seats have to be created and allocated for such students. But such a power is vested by the Constitution with the Central Government in Article 253 read with Entries 10, 14, 17 and 19 of List 1 of 7th Schedule of the Indian Constitution. Of course, States can always apprise the Central Government on a particular situation, but, ultimately, it is for the Central Government to take a decision. 12. In the instant case, the Central Government has continued the facilities, which were given to Sri Lankan refugee students, only up to the academic year 1991-92, and discontinued the facilities from 1992-93 onwards. The reservation issue, which the Larger Bench of this Court has decided in AARTHI M. (minor) v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU (supra) relates to one emanating from Article 15 of the Constitution of India. The reservation issue, which the Larger Bench of this Court has decided in AARTHI M. (minor) v. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU (supra) relates to one emanating from Article 15 of the Constitution of India. It is no way concerned with non-citizens like Sri Lankan refugee students. As already stated above, the issue relating to any relief or facility to be provided to the Sri Lankan refugee students falls within the domain of the Central Government, and it is for the Central Government, which is now impleaded as the 8th respondent in this petition vide order dated 21.11.2003 in W.P.M.P.No.37714 of 2003, to take a decision in this regard, and the State of Tamil Nadu is also at liberty to address the Central Government, if it feels necessary that the facility of granting extra seats for allocation to Sri Lankan refugee students in Educational Institutions of Tamil Nadu should be extended to them. 13.With the above observations this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.