Sub-classification Of Castes Would Amount To States Tinkering With Presidential List : Justice Bela Trivedi's Dissent

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, by 6:1 majority, has held that sub-division of Scheduled Caste to provide reservation to the weakest out of the weak is permissible.Justice Bela dissented. Justice Bela's dissent Justice Bela formulated three issues:Issues Held Does the law laid down in E.V. Chinnaiah need to be revisited?No. Justice Bela says: “Reference was made by three-judge bench [in Davinder Singh] to the larger bench for revisitation of the earlier decision of Constitution Bench in E.V. Chinnaiah, without assigning any reason and in a very casual and cavalier manner, and that too after fifteen years of its attaining finality”Does subclassification of Scheduled Castes lead to tinkering of the Presidential List under Article 341 Yes, because the “etymological and evolutionary history and background of the nomenclature “Scheduled Castes,” coupled with the Presidential Orders published under Article 341 of the Constitution, make the “Scheduled Castes”, a homogenous class”Justice Bela held that States neither have legislative nor executive power for subclassifying Scheduled Castes by virtue of Article 341. Therefore: “Under the guise of providing reservation for the weaker of the weakest castes, the State could not be permitted to make any variation in the notification nor could it be permitted to indirectly tinker with such notification published under Article 341(1).”Does E.V. Chinnaiah need to be revisited in light of Indra Sawhney's judgment allowing sub-classification in Other Backward Classes No, because Indra Sawhney judgment did not deal with the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes. E.V. Chinnaiah did not require a reference to a larger bench As per Justice Bela, the three judge bench in The State of Punjab & Ors v. Davinder Singh & Ors (2020), which made a reference to a five judge bench for revisiting E.V. Chinnaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors (2004),did not provide cogent reason why it disagreed with E.V. Chinnaiah's reasoning. In E.V. Chinnaiah, the bench of Justices N. Santosh Hedge, S.N. Variava, B.P. Singh, H.K. Sema, and S.B. Sinha held that a sub-classification of the Scheduled Caste category is not permissible. The court held the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 unconstitutional in this case. The Andhra Pradesh legislation apportioned the benefit of reservation among Scheduled Castes into four groups based on the recommendation of the Ramachandran Raju Commission constituted by the government. The commission found inter-se backwardness amongst the Scheduled Castes in the State in reservation in education and appointments. It was also the issue in E.V. Chinnaiah if the reasoning of Indra Sawhney v. UOI & Ors (1992), wherein the court permitted subclassification of Other Backward Communities as backward and more backward based on their comparative underdeveloped, could be applied for the sub-classification under the Scheduled Caste. The court held that Indra Sawhney's judgment does not apply to the subclassification of Scheduled Caste because the judgment itself specified that subdivision of Other Backward Classes does not apply to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. However, the bench comprising Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah, and Aniruddha Bose in Davinder Singh disagreed with the E.V. Chinnaiah judgment. In Davinder Singh, the validity of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 was in question. The provision provided for 50 percent reservation out of the 25 percent reserved for the Scheduled Caste to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs as the first preference amongst the Scheduled Castes. This was held unconstitutional by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which relied on E.V. Chinniah's judgment. The high court's order was challenged before the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court which stated that E.V. Chinnaiah needs to be revisited and referred a matter to a larger bench of five judges. The Supreme Court bench of five judges held that in Indra Sawhney, the court admitted the word 'backward classes' included within it Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and they stood on the same footing in terms of the application of Article 16(4) which provides for reservation in public employment to backward classes. The court had said: “The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes admittedly are backward, and the same yardstick would apply to all. In Indra Sawhney, it was held that it is permissible to make subclassification within socially and educationally backward classes. That discussion would be applicable for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as they admittedly fall under Article 16(4).”The court also held that subclassification does not tinker with Article...

Sub-classification Of Castes Would Amount To States Tinkering With Presidential List : Justice Bela Trivedi's Dissent

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Sub-classification Of Castes Would Amount To States Tinkering With Presidential List : Justice Bela Trivedi's Dissent

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers