In a landmark decision promoting social equality, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court has ruled by a 6-1 majority that sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SC) is permissible to provide separate quotas for more disadvantaged groups within the SC categories.
Court’s Clarification on Sub-Classification of Scheduled Castes
The Supreme Court clarified that while sub-classification is allowed, the State cannot allocate 100% reservation to a sub-class. The State must justify sub-classification based on empirical data demonstrating inadequate representation of the sub-class. Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud highlighted that the majority opinion, which includes six judgments, has overruled the 2004 EV Chinniah judgment that prohibited sub-classification. Justice Bela Trivedi dissented from the majority view.
Addressing the Key Aspects: Sub-Classification and the EV Chinniah Judgment
The seven-judge bench, including CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, deliberated on two main issues: (1) the permissibility of sub-classification within reserved castes, and (2) the validity of the 2004 EV Chinniah judgment that stated SCs, as identified under Article 341, form a single homogeneous group that cannot be further sub-categorized. The judgment was reserved on February 8, after three days of hearings.
Sub-Classification Does Not Violate Articles 14 and 341: CJI’s Perspective
CJI DY Chandrachud, in his judgment, cited historical evidence indicating that Scheduled Castes are not a homogeneous group. He stated that sub-classification does not violate the equality principle enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution or Article 341(2). Articles 15 and 16 do not prevent the State from sub-classifying a caste. However, sub-classification must be justified by quantifiable and demonstrable data showing inadequate representation. State actions cannot be based on whims or political expediency and are subject to judicial review.
Preferential Treatment for More Backward Classes
Justice BR Gavai, in his concurring judgment, emphasized the State’s duty to give preferential treatment to the more backward communities within the SC category. He noted that only a few individuals within the SC/ST categories benefit from reservations, and ground realities reveal that some sub-groups within SC/STs have faced greater oppression over centuries. Justice Gavai pointed out that the EV Chinniah judgment erred in assuming that Article 341 is the basis of reservation, whereas it only deals with identifying castes for reservation purposes. The primary reason for sub-classification is to address the additional discrimination faced by certain groups within the larger category.
Applying the Creamy Layer Concept to SC/STs
Justice Gavai suggested that the State must develop a policy to identify and exclude the creamy layer within the SC/ST categories from affirmative action, as this is essential for achieving true equality. Justice Vikram Nath concurred, advocating that the creamy layer principle, applied to Other Backward Classes (OBCs), should also be extended to SCs.
Dissenting Opinion: Justice Trivedi
In her dissent, Justice Bela Trivedi argued that the Presidential list of Scheduled Castes, as notified under Article 341, cannot be altered by States. She maintained that only Parliament can include or exclude castes from the Presidential list. Sub-classification, according to her, would amount to tampering with the Presidential list and could introduce political factors into the SC-ST list. She emphasized that preferential treatment for a sub-class would deprive other classes within the same category of benefits.
The Reference to the Seven-Judge Bench
The issue was referred to a seven-judge bench by a five-judge bench in 2020 in the case State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh. The five-judge bench observed that the EV Chinniah judgment, which ruled sub-classification impermissible, needed reconsideration. The reference arose from a case challenging Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which reserved 50% of vacancies within the SC quota for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs.
Reassessing the EV Chinniah Judgment
In EV Chinniah, the bench held that all castes listed under Article 341(1) formed a homogeneous group that could not be subdivided further. The judgment also stated that any legislation involving State Public Services or Education, listed in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, would violate Article 14.
Petitioners’ Arguments for Sub-Classification
The petitioners contended that EV Chinniah misinterpreted Indra Sawhney’s observations, which did not explicitly exclude SCs from sub-classification. They argued that sub-classification ensures diverse and efficient governance by incorporating adequate representations. The petitioners highlighted the heterogeneity within Scheduled Castes and the need for sub-classification to address varied degrees of discrimination and occupational differences.
Respondents’ Opposition to Sub-Classification
The respondents argued that Article 341 aims to identify common discrimination and backwardness among diverse groups within SCs. They maintained that sub-classification is within Parliament’s authority, not the States, as per Article 341(2). The respondents stressed that sub-classification could undermine the unified implementation of benefits and reverse the purpose of reservations.
Conclusion: Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision
The Supreme Court’s ruling allowing sub-classification within Scheduled Castes marks a significant step towards addressing historical injustices and promoting social equality. The judgment emphasizes the need for empirical data to justify sub-classification and ensures judicial oversight to prevent arbitrary state actions. This decision opens the door for more nuanced and effective affirmative action policies tailored to the varying needs of different sub-groups within the Scheduled Castes.