Supreme Court Rules Sub-Classification Within Scheduled Castes for Separate Quotas for More Backward Groups is Permissible

 

Supreme Court Ruling on Sub-Classification of Scheduled Castes

Overview

In a landmark decision, a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India has ruled (6-1) that sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes (SC) is permissible. This decision overrules the previous judgment in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004), which had held that SCs constituted a homogeneous group that could not be further divided.

Key Aspects of the Judgment

1. Permissibility of Sub-Classification

   The Supreme Court has clarified that while sub-classification within SCs is permissible, states cannot allocate 100% reservation to any sub-class. The state must justify the sub-classification with empirical data demonstrating the inadequacy of representation for that sub-class.

   • Historical Context and Judicial Interpretation Chief Justice DY Chandrachud highlighted that historical evidence shows SCs are not a homogeneous group. He emphasized that sub-classification does not violate the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 341 of the Constitution.

   • State Responsibility States are required to provide evidence to support the need for sub-classification and ensure that it is not based on political expediency. Such decisions are subject to judicial review.

2. Majority Opinion

   • Duty to Preferentially Treat Backward Communities Justice BR Gavai, in his concurring opinion, stated that it is the state's duty to provide preferential treatment to more backward communities within SCs. He criticized the EV Chinnaiah judgment for assuming that Article 341 alone governs reservations, while it only identifies castes for reservations.

   • Creamy Layer Concept Justice Gavai and other concurring justices (Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, Satish Chandra Sharma) supported the application of the "creamy layer" principle to SCs, suggesting that reservation benefits should not extend indefinitely to successive generations.

3. Dissenting Opinion

   • Justice Bela Trivedi's Dissent Justice Trivedi dissented, arguing that the Presidential list of SCs under Article 341 cannot be altered by states through sub-classification. She contended that such actions would amount to interference with the list's integrity and lead to unequal benefits distribution among SC sub-classes.

Background and Case Context

• Reference to 7-Judge Bench The issue was referred to a 7-judge bench by a 5-judge bench in 2020 in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh. The 5-judge bench noted that the EV Chinnaiah judgment required reconsideration due to its interpretation of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.

• Previous Judgment and Legislative Context The 2004 EV Chinnaiah judgment had held that SCs formed a homogeneous group, preventing further sub-categorization. The State of Punjab's case involved Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which was challenged based on this judgment.

Arguments Presented

1. Petitioners' Arguments

   • Misinterpretation of Indra Sawhney Petitioners argued that EV Chinnaiah misinterpreted Indra Sawhney and incorrectly excluded SCs from sub-classification possibilities.

   • Diversity and Efficiency They emphasized that sub-classification would ensure better governance by incorporating diverse representations and addressing varied levels of discrimination.

   • Article 341 and Legislative Competence It was argued that Article 341 only deals with the identification of SCs, and the legislative power to sub-classify lies with the states under Articles 15(4) and 16(4), supported by empirical data.

2. Respondents' Arguments

   • Homogeneity and Article 341 Respondents argued that Article 341 was meant to identify a common thread among SCs and that subclassification should be a parliamentary function, not a state one.

   • Impact on Reservations They warned that subclassification might lead to unequal distribution of reservation benefits, impacting the effectiveness of affirmative action.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's ruling allows states to sub-classify SCs for more effective representation but mandates that such actions must be evidence-based and justifiable. The ruling introduces the need for a creamy layer policy for SCs, ensuring that reservation benefits target those who are truly in need. This decision represents a significant shift in the understanding and implementation of affirmative action within India’s SC framework.