In a major ruling on the 1st of August, a 7-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court ruled by a 6:1 majority that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes is admissible in order to give distinct quotas for more backwards within the SC/ST categories. CJI DY Chandrachud stated that the ruling contains six views. While six out of seven judges agreed that sub-classification is permissible, Justice Bela Trivedi dissented. Justice Trivedi opined that such sub-classification is not permissible.
The seven-judge Constitution bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma overturned the 2005 decision in EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which ruled that sub-classification of SC/STs violates Article 341 of the Constitution, which grants the President the authority to prepare the list of SC/STs.
SC: The basis of sub-classification and the model which has been followed will have to be justified on the basis of empirical data gathered by the State. In other words, while the statement embarks on an exercise of sub-classification, it must do so on the basis of quantifiable…
— Verdictum (@verdictum_in) August 1, 2024
“The members of SC/ST are not often able to climb up the ladder due to the systemic discrimination faced. Article 14 permits sub-classification of caste. Court must check if a class is homogeneous or and a class not integrated for a purpose can be further classified,” the court said.
The Court maintained the legality of statutes allowing for such sub-classification in Punjab, Tamil Nadu, and other states. In this case, the Court affirmed the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act of 2006.
Similarly, the court also upheld the Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars (Special Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and Appointments or Posts in State Services within the Reservation for the Scheduled Castes) Act, 2009, which provides for Arunthathiyars to be given preference in educational institutions and State government positions from the State’s 18% reservation for Scheduled Castes.
In his decision, CJI DY Chandrachud cited historical evidence to support his contention that scheduled castes are not a homogeneous entity. He opined that sub-classification does not violate the principle of equality established by Article 14 of the Constitution. Additionally, sub-classification does not violate Article 341(2) of the Constitution. Nothing in Articles 15 and 16 stops the State from subclassifying a Caste.
The CJI, however, emphasised that the basis of subclassification must be supported by quantitative and demonstrable evidence from States. The state cannot act on its whims or political expediency, and its decisions are subject to court review.
A Bar and Bench report says that during the hearings on this matter, the CJI had said that there is a distinction between “sub-classification” and “sub-categorisation”. In addition, he said that exclusion or inclusion of communities should not be done for appeasement politics.
In his concurring judgement, Justice BR Gavai stated that it is the state’s responsibility to give “preferential treatment” to more backward communities. Justice Gavai opined that a select few in the SC/ST category benefit from the reservations. He added that the ground realities cannot be neglected, and certain categories within the SC/STs have endured greater oppression for generations.
However, Justice Bela Trivedi expressed her dissent and said, “Castes can be included or excluded from the Presidential list only by a law enacted by Parliament. Sub-classification will amount to tinkering of the Presidential list. 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,” Justice Trivedi said. Justice Trivedi also stated that the decision in E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh was right.
The bench had stated orally that the Punjab government’s law may have been intended to exclude reserved category applicants who had previously benefited from legal relaxations.
Notably, the Central government has defended reservation for underprivileged groups and said that it supports subclassification. The States argued that sub-classifying SC/STs does not violate Article 341 because it does not alter the President’s list.
States maintained that Article 341 only deals with the establishment of a list of SCs, and that it does not restrict states from sub-classifying SCs depending on their backwardness in order to extend reservation advantages.
Notably, Additional Advocate General of Punjab Shadan Farasat had argued that the recently enacted Article 342A of the Constitution made it obvious that the Chinnaiah decision was no longer applicable. This section particularly enables States and Union Territories to keep a list of Socially and Economically Backward Classes, which may differ from the Presidential list.
Similarly, former Attorney General KK Venugopal also pushed for sub-classification. Recalling his experience litigating in the Chinnaiah case, he remarked that without sub-classification, the weakest sectors of society will be left behind, therefore negating the purpose of reservations.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, standing for the respondents, claimed that all the communities included in the Presidential list suffered from the “taint of untouchability” and the Constituent Assembly decided not to compare who suffered the most atrocities.
Back in 1975, the Punjab government issued a notification separating the 25% SC reservation into two groups. Seats in the first category were designated only for the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh groups, which were and remain among the state’s backwards economically and educationally. According to the policy, they were to be given priority for reservation in education and state jobs. The second category included the remaining SC communities.
This notification continued in effect till 2004 when a five-judge Constitution Bench overturned a similar rule passed by Andhra Pradesh in 2000. In E.V. Chinnaiah, the Supreme Court overturned the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 finding it in violation of the right to equality. This law had a list of Scheduled Caste communities in the state and the quota of reservation benefits provided to them.
In Dr Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court reversed the 1975 notification two years after the Supreme Court’s verdict.
