In a significant ruling, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India has declared that sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs) is permissible to create separate quotas for the most disadvantaged groups within these categories. This decision was reached by a 6-1 majority, with Justice Bela Trivedi dissenting.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, delivering the majority opinion, clarified that while sub-classification is allowed, states cannot reserve 100% of the quotas for a subclass without justification. The state must provide empirical data to demonstrate the inadequate representation of the sub-class.
This ruling overturns the 2004 judgement in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that SCs, as notified under Article 341, formed a homogeneous group that could not be further divided. The bench comprising CJI Chandrachud, Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, delivered the verdict after reserving judgement on February 8, 2024.
CJI Chandrachud and Justice Misra emphasised historical evidence indicating that SCs are not a homogeneous class. They argued that sub-classification does not violate Article 14 (Right to Equality) or Article 341(2) of the Constitution. They noted that Articles 15 and 16 do not prevent states from sub-classifying castes, provided the sub-classification is based on quantifiable data.
Justice BR Gavai, concurring with the majority, highlighted the duty of the state to provide preferential treatment to the more backward communities within SCs. He stressed that only a select few within the SC/ST categories currently benefit from reservations, and sub-classification would address this imbalance. Justice Gavai also proposed that the “creamy layer” principle should apply to SC/STs to ensure genuine equality.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma also supported the application of the creamy layer principle to SCs, with Justice Mithal suggesting that reservation benefits should be limited to one generation.
Justice Bela Trivedi, in her dissenting opinion, argued that the Presidential list of SCs under Article 341 cannot be altered by states. She stated that only Parliament has the authority to include or exclude castes from this list. Sub-classification by states, she argued, would amount to tampering with the Presidential list and could lead to political manipulation.
Background of the Case:
The issue was referred to the seven-judge bench by a five-judge bench in 2020, in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh. The 2020 bench observed that the E.V. Chinnaiah’s judgement needed reconsideration. The reference arose from the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which reserved 50% of the SC quota for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs. This provision was struck down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2010, based on the E.V. Chinnaiah ruling.
The petitioners argued that E.V. Chinnaiah misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s observations in the Indira Sawhney case, which allowed sub-classification within Other Backward Classes (OBCs) but did not explicitly exclude SCs. They contended that sub-classification would promote diverse and efficient governance and that the diverse groups within SCs faced varying levels of discrimination.
Respondents argued that Article 341 intended to identify a common thread of discrimination across diverse SC groups, making them a homogeneous class. They asserted that only Parliament, not states, could alter the SC list. They also warned that sub-classification could make reservations ineffective for other subclasses within SCs.
The Supreme Court’s decision to allow sub-classification within Scheduled Castes marks a pivotal shift in India’s reservation policy, aiming to ensure that the benefits of affirmative action reach the most disadvantaged within these communities. The ruling emphasises the need for empirical data to justify such sub-classifications and underscores the judiciary’s role in reviewing state decisions.
