The Supreme Court on Thursday, August 1, ruled that a sub-classification would be permissible within reserved category groups for providing benefits of affirmative action. That is, a quota within quota is permissible for castes that are more marginalised among the groups in any reserved category, the court has ruled.
A 7-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud overturned its 2004 Constitution Bench judgement, which ruled against giving preferential treatment to certain castes within Scheduled Caste (SC) categorisation. There were a total of six judgements given on Thursday by the Bench, and all but one concurred that a sub-classification was possible — Justice Bela Trivedi dissented. The majority overruled the EV Chinnaiah judgement of 2004 which held that sub-classification is not permissible. The Bench comprised Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma.
The Court also said that the ruling did not indicate that a State could earmark 100% reservation for a sub-class. The State will have to justify the sub-classification based on empirical data regarding the inadequacy of representation of the sub-class.
According to LiveLaw, the Constitution Bench primarily considered two aspects — whether sub-classification within the reserved castes should be allowed, and the correctness of the decision in EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394, which held that 'Scheduled Castes' (SCs) notified under Article 341, formed one homogenous group and could not be sub-categorised further.
Scheduled Castes are not a homogeneous class
CJI DY Chandrachud, in the judgement written for himself and Justice Misra, referred to historical evidence which suggested that Scheduled Castes are not a homogeneous class. “Sub-classification does not violate the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Also, sub-classification does not violate Article 341(2) of the Constitution. There is nothing in Articles 15 and 16 which prevents the State from sub-classifying a caste,” the CJI said.
“The holding in Chinnaiah (vs Andhra Pradesh) that sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes is impermissible is overruled...The objective of any form of affirmative action including sub- classification is to provide substantive equality of opportunity for the backward classes. The State can sub-classify, based on inadequate representation of certain castes. However, the State must establish that the inadequacy of representation of a caste/group is because of its backwardness,” Chandrachud stated.
He cautioned that the basis of sub-classification has to be justified by quantifiable and demonstrable data by states that they are not adequately represented. “The State cannot act on its whims or political expediency and its decision is amenable to judicial review,” the order said.
In a concurring judgement, Justice BR Gavai said that it was the duty of the state to give preferential treatment to the more backward communities. He stated that only a few people within the category of SC/ST were enjoying the reservations, while the reality was that there were categories within the SC/STs facing more oppression for centuries.
Justice Gavai also made a case for formulating a policy to identify creamy layers among the SC/ST category and take them out of the fold of affirmative action. This is the only way to gain true equality, he said.
Justices Vikram Nath and Pankaj Mithal also concurred that like the OBCs, the creamy layer principle applied to SCs. Justices Pankaj Mithal and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma also felt that reservation should be limited to a single generation. “If the first generation reached a higher status through the reservation, the second generation should not be entitled to it,” Justice Mithal said.
Justice Trivedi's dissent
In her dissent, Justice Trivedi stated that the Presidential list of Scheduled Castes notified under Article 341 cannot be altered by the States. Castes can be included or excluded from the Presidential list only by a law enacted by the Parliament, she said, adding that sub-classification would amount to tinkering with the Presidential list. The object of Article 341 was to eliminate any political factors playing a role in the SC/ST list, Justice Trivedi said, according to Live Law.
She held that any preferential treatment for a sub-class within the Presidential list would lead to deprivation of the benefits of the other classes within the same category. In the absence of executive or legislative power, the States do not have any competence to sub-classify the castes and sub-classify the benefits which are reserved for all of the SCs. Allowing States to do so will amount to allowing a ‘colourable exercise of power’, she said.
The background
In 2004, a 5-judge Constitution Bench in EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh case held that the members of the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) form homogeneous groups incapable of further regrouping or classification.
EV Chinnaiah had challenged the validity of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 (AP Act 20 of 2000). The Act was made after a committee headed by Justice Ramachandra Raju identified groups amongst the Scheduled Castes found in the List prepared under Article 341 of the Constitution of India by the President, who had failed to secure the benefit of the reservations provided for Scheduled Castes in the State in admission to professional colleges and appointment to services in the State.
Following the recommendation of Justice Raju committee, the State divided the 57 castes enumerated in the Presidential List into four groups based on backwardness and fixed separate quotas in reservation for each of these groups and passed a law. This was challenged in the court.
The Chinnaiah judgement had said that to re-group the Scheduled Castes specified in the Presidential Notification issued under Article 341 of the Constitution would be tantamount to discrimination in reverse and would attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution.
EV Chinnaiah had challenged the validity of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 (A.P. Act 20 of 2000). The Act was made after a committee headed by Justice Ramachandra Raju identified groups amongst the Scheduled Castes found in the List prepared under Article 341 of the Constitution of India by the President, who had failed to secure the benefit of the reservations provided for Scheduled Castes in the State in admission to professional colleges and appointment to services in the State.
Following the recommendation of Justice Raju committee, the State divided the 57 castes enumerated in the Presidential List into four groups based on backwardness and fixed separate quotas in reservation for each of these groups.
In 2020, a 5-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra (now retired) ruled that the EV Chinnaiah ruling had to be revisited by a larger bench saying that the benefit of reservation was not percolating down to the neediest and poorest of the poor.
The apex court was dealing with an appeal filed by the Punjab government against the ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashing the 2006 Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act providing ‘first preference’ to Balmikis and Mazbhi Sikh castes under the SC quota.
(With inputs from IANS)