Sub-Classification Permissible Within Scheduled Castes To Give Separate Quotas For More Backwards : Supreme Court

A 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court(by 6-1) held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes is permissible to grant separate quotas for more backwards within the SC categories.The verdict means that States can identify more backwards among the SC categories and can sub-classify them for separate quota within the quota.The Court clarified that while allowing sub-classification, the State cannot earmark 100% reservation for a sub-class. Also, the State has to justify the sub-classification on the basis of empirical data regarding the inadequacy of representation of the sub-class.Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud stated that there are 6 judgments, all concurring. The majority has overruled the EV Chinniah judgment of 2004 which held that sub-classification is not permissible. Justice Bela Trivedi dissented.The 7-judge Constitution Bench was considering essentially two aspects: (1) whether sub-classification with the reserved castes be allowed, and (2) the correctness of the decision in E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394, which held that 'Scheduled Castes' (SCs) notified under Article 341 formed one homogenous group and could not be sub-categorized further. The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma reserved the judgment on February 8 this year after hearing the matter for three days. Sub-classification does not violate Articles 14, 341 : CJI's opinionCJI DY Chandrachud, in the judgment written for himself and Justice Misra, referred to historical evidence which suggested that scheduled castes are not a homogeneous class. Sub-classification does not violate the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Also, sub-classification does not violate Article 341(2) of the Constitution. There is nothing in Articles 15 and 16 which prevents the State from sub-classifying a Caste.The basis of subclassification has to be justified by quantifiable and demonstrable data by States that they are not adequately represented. State cannot act on its whims or political expediency and its decision is amenable to judicial review.State can give more preferential treatment to more backward classesJustice BR Gavai, in his concurring judgment, stated that it is the duty of the state to give preferential treatment to the more backward communities. Only a few people within the category of SC/ST are enjoying the reservations. The ground realities cannot be denied and there are categories within the SC/STs which have faced more oppression for centuries.The basic error in EV Chinnaiah judgment is that it proceeded on the understanding that Article 341 is the basis of reservation. Article 341 only deals with the identification of castes for the purpose of reservation.The grounds for sub-classification is that a group from the larger group faces more discrimination. Creamy layer must be made applicable to SC/STs : Justice GavaiJustice Gavai opined that the State must evolve a policy to identify creamy layers among the SC/ ST category and take them out of the fold of affirmative action. This is the only way to gain true equality, he said.Justice Vikram Nath also concurred with this view that the creamy layer principle as applicable to OBCs also applies to SCs. Similar view was expressed by Justice Pankaj Mithal, who said that reservation should be limited to one generation. If the 1st generation reached a higher status through the reservation, the 2nd generation should not be entitled to it, Justice Mithal said.Justice Satish Chandra Sharma also supported this view.Justice Trivedi's dissentIn her dissent, Justice Trivedi stated that the Presidential list of Scheduled Castes notified under Article 341 cannot be altered by the States. Castes can be included or excluded from the Presidential list only by a law enacted by the Parliament. Sub-classification will amount to tinkering of the Presidential list. The object of Article 341 was to eliminate any political factors playing a role in the SC-ST listJustice Trivedi stated that the rule of plain and literal interpretation has to be kept in mind. Any preferential treatment for a sub-class within the Presidential list will lead to deprivation of the benefits of the other classes within the same category.In the absence of executive or legislative power, the States do not have any competence to sub-classify the castes and sub-classify the benefits which are reserved for all of the SCs. Allowing States to do so will amount to allowing a colourable exercise of power. What Led To The Reference Of The Issue? The matter was referred to a 7-judge bench by a 5-judge bench in 2020 in the case State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh. The 5-judge bench observed that the judgment of the coordinate bench in E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394, which held that sub-classification was not permissible, was required to be...

Sub-Classification Permissible Within Scheduled Castes To Give Separate Quotas For More Backwards : Supreme Court

Anmol Kaur Bawa

The verdict means that States can identify more backwards among the SC categories and can sub-classify them for separate quota within the quota.

Tags