Thol. Thirumavalavan MP Files Review Petition Against Supreme Court's Judgment Allowing Sub-Classification Of Scheduled Castes

Today, Thol Thirumavalavan, 2nd-time Member of Parliament and President of Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi-the largest Dalit Party in Tamil Nadu has filed a review petition against the sub-classification judgment of the Supreme Court. A seven-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 Scheduled Castes category.The Bench comprised of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma.The impugned judgment decided a reference to revisit this Court's judgment in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh(2005) which held that the State cannot apportion reservations among subclasses within the Scheduled Castes' list. While overruling the judgment in E.V. Chinniah, this Court declared that the sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes for the reservation is permissible.Previously, a review petition was filed by lawyer Jaishri Patil, contending that the Supreme Court's interpretation in the Indra Sawhney case (1992) regarding the sub-classification of backward classes does not apply to SCs and STs.The review petition states several grave and manifest errors of law in the impugned judgment that need to be corrected. These are:1. The judgment made an error by failing to establish an upper limit on the number of seats that can be reserved for the more backward castes within the overall Scheduled Castes quota.2. The Court failed to observe that upper limit must be proportionate to the percentage of the population of the identified sub-class and such a limit ought to be prescribed by this Court to prevent the exclusion of other castes falling in the list of Scheduled Castes.3. The judgment is contrary to the well-settled legal principles of 'reasonable classification' under Article 14 of the Constitution as it failed to assess the limitations of subclassification of the list of Scheduled Castes.4. The judgment notes that there are two models of reservations for the sub-classified classes, the preference model and the exclusive model, and the CJI recognizes at para. 179 that “it needs to be analyzed if both models are constitutional” but erred in properly examining the constitutional limits of the two models.5. The judgment correctly reasoned in para. 182 (CJI) that the constitutionality of the preference model or the exclusive model would depend on “whether the variation in-effect excludes any caste notified as a Scheduled Caste with respect to that State by the President under Article 341(1)” but it failed to note that when a certain caste or castes are allocated a disproportionate percentage of seats or disproportionate sub-quota vis-a-vis their population, it effectively leads to exclusion of other castes within the Scheduled Caste quota.6. The Court, at para. 183 (CJI), describes the constitutionally permissible preference model as a model wherein “preference to certain castes is given only over a certain percentage of the seats” but the court failed to prescribe a limit for the preference to be given over a certain percentage of seats. It made a grave error in concluding that “this model does not have the effect of excluding any of the castes in Scheduled Castes List.” The judgment fails to prescribe the upper limit of preference over certain percentage of seats for the identified sub-castes or sub-class, which can lead to the exclusion of other castes within the Scheduled Caste quota.7. The Court observed, in para. 187 (CJI), that “the constitutionality of the exclusive model depends on the percentage of reservation for the sub-categorized castes,” but it failed to note that the constitutionality of the exclusive model is hinged on the percentage allotted to the sub-classified castes which ought to be proportionate to their population.8. The Court ignored the conditions of reasonable classification, as enunciated in the seven-judge bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) that the classification “must have a rational basis” and “it should not select any person for hostile discrimination at the cost of others”.9. The Court failed to consider that adequate representation can align with proportional representation, it cannot exceed the proportionate share, ensuring that the balance is maintained without overstepping the limits set by their population percentages. The Court should not conflate the necessity of proportional representation in sub-classification with the 50% cap on vertical reservations established in Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,(1992). In that case, the Court noted that while the combined population of SCs, STs, and OBCs may exceed 50% of the total population, the Constitution mandates adequate representation rather than proportional representation. But when it comes to sub-classification within Scheduled Castes, the principle of proportional representation is...

Thol. Thirumavalavan MP Files Review Petition Against Supreme Court's Judgment Allowing Sub-Classification Of Scheduled Castes

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags