Scheduled Castes Not A Homogeneous Class, Sub-classification One Of The Means To Achieve Substantive Equality: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court bench of seven judges headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma today, by 6:1 majority, held that sub-division of Scheduled Caste to provide reservation to the weakest out of the weak is permissible.Justice Bela Trivedi dissented. CJI Chandrachud's opinion Chief Justice Chandrachud authored the opinion for Justice Misra and himself. He formulated four issues: Issues Held Whether subclassification is permissible Yes, Scheduled Castes can be further classified if: (a) there is a rational principle for differentiation; and (b) if the rational principle has a nexus with the purpose of sub-classification“Sub-classification is one of the means to achieve substantive equality” Is Scheduled Caste homogenous?No, because “empirical evidence indicates that there is inequality even within the Scheduled Castes. The Scheduled Castes are not a homogenous integrated class”Whether Article 341 creates a homogenous class by deeming fictionNo, because “the inclusion does not automatically lead to the formation of a uniform and internally homogenous class which cannot be further classified. Article 341 creates a legal fiction for the limited purpose of identification of Scheduled Castes by distinguishing them from other groups”.Limit to the scope of subclassification “While the State may embark on an exercise of sub-classification, it must do so on the basis of quantifiable and demonstrable data bearing on levels of backwardness and representation in the services of the State."“The model of sub-classification will be unconstitutional if it excludes some Scheduled Castes from the benefit”The underlying reasoning behind Justice Chandrachud's opinion is the principle of substantive equality. He stated: “The Constitution, after the numerous turbulations within each of the issues traced, today advances a more substantive reading of the equality provision, expanding the sphere and the scope of reservation to ensure that the benefits trickle down to those who need it the most. However, traces of the friction between merit and reservation continue to persist even after the amendments to Articles 16 and 335.”He added: “This Court has, with a few divergences, continued to uphold the binary of merit and reservations. The understanding of the Courts at the end of this phase was that the scope of reservation must be expanded to ensure substantive equality in spite of its dilution of efficiency, thereby continuing to read the requirement of efficiency into Article 16(4).”Justice Chandrachud stated that in the formative years, Article 14 was interpreted to envisage formal equality through the reasonable classification doctrine which meant 'like should be treated like'. However, this doctrine was not extended to Articles 15(1) and 16(1) in the domain of reservation on the underlying assumption that 'not all persons are alike' to the realm of reservation. This was reflected in the State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), wherein the court held that the reservation of seats in State-aided or funded education institutions based on caste, religion, race etc violated Article 29. Through the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, Article 15(4) was included to overcome the impediment caused by this judgment. Subsequently, in the same year, B Venkataramana v. The State of Tamil Nadu (1951) held that Article 16(4) permitted Harijans and the backward Hindus to be considered as 'backward classes' and any other representation would be discriminatory based on the ground of caste. Justice Chandrachud opined that two judgments adopted a formalistic and 'reservation-limiting approach' in reading constitutional provisions. It viewed reservation as “an exception to the principle of equal opportunity in Articles 15(1) and 16(1)”. Therefore, “reservation or any other form of affirmative action was regarding as antithetical to the equality principle and not a re-statement of it”. With the expansive of scope of reservation in services, the court was faced with the issue of whether it would dilute the overall efficiency of the service. Article 335 emphasised that the State must maintain the efficiency of administration while deciding the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the appointment of services. Reservation in promotionSubsequent judgments deal with the issue of whether reservation in promotion was detrimental to efficiency. In General Management, Southern Railway v. Rangachari (1962), the majority held that although reservations in promotions are detrimental to efficiency, a substantive reading of Article 16(4) would allow that. It interpreted the phrase “matters relating to employment” under Article 16(1) to also include promotion. This was overruled in Indra Sawhney v. UOI & Ors (1992). Subsequently, the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 included clause 4A...

Scheduled Castes Not A Homogeneous Class, Sub-classification One Of The Means To Achieve Substantive Equality: Supreme Court

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags