Sub-classification of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes is permissible: Recent Supreme Court Judgment
Share on:
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India on August 01, 2024, delivered a long-awaiting judgment, The State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Davinder Singh & Ors., on the issue of whether sub-classification of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs) is constitutionally permissible or not. The Punjab Government in 1975 issued a notification dividing its existing 25% reservation for SC into 2 categories, Half of the reserved seats for the SC category were offered to Balmikis (Valmikis) and Mazhabi Sikhs whereas the other half were offered to the remaining SC category. This notification remained in effect until the five-judge bench’s decision in the EV Chinnaiah case that set aside a similar law in Andhra Pradesh and ruled that sub-classification within the SC category was not permissible. This resulted in struck down of the Punjab notification by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on July 25, 2006. The decision in the EV Chinnaiah case held that the SC category as a whole was one homogeneous group. It also stated that the state government has no power to categorize any group of people as Scheduled Castes as this power belongs to the President (according to Article 341 of the Constitution of India). This was the beginning of the long battle where various existing decisions of the Court were addressed to come to an appropriate decision. On August 01, 2024, the seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered the verdict after the same was reserved in February 2024. Let us explore the key points of the judgment regarding the Sub-classification of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes.
Recent Supreme Court Judgment
On August 01, 2024, the seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC) headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, including others, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Bela M Trivedi, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma delivered an important decision on the major issue, “whether sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes for reservation is constitutionally permissible.” This verdict includes six separate opinions running into 565 pages. The SC bench held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes is permissible with a 6:1 majority. The majority bench held that the sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs) for reservation is constitutionally permissible. The bench overruled its earlier decision in the EV Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh that held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes is contrary to Article 341 of the Constitution of India which confers the right on the President to prepare the list of SC/STs. Justice Trivedi dissented from the majority opinion and held that such sub-classifications are not permissible.
Issues
The CJI authored the judgment including his and Justice Misra’s opinion. In his judgment, he listed the issues for consideration,
- “Whether sub-classification of a reserved class is permissible under Articles 14, 15 and 16;
- Whether the Scheduled Castes constitute a homogenous or a heterogenous grouping;
- Whether Article 341 creates a homogenous class through the operation of the deeming fiction; and
- Whether there any limits on the scope of sub-classification.”
Judgment
The majority view in the case was given by the CJI, Justice Misra, Justice Gavai, Justice Nath, Justice Mithal, and Justice Sharma. The SC ruled that sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes for reservation is constitutionally permissible. CJI in its judgment said that “Historical and empirical evidence demonstrates that the Scheduled Castes are a socially heterogenous class. Thus, the State in exercise of the power under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) can further classify the Scheduled Castes if: (a) there is a rational principle for differentiation; and (b) if the rational principle has a nexus with the purpose of sub-classification.” He added, “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 added that the holding in Chinnaiah that sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes is impermissible is overruled.
Justice Gavai, in his judgment, said “In a case, like the present one, if a classification is made, it will have to be established that the group carved out from the larger group is more disadvantageous and not adequately represented. The result of classification would be to provide more preferential treatment to this more disadvantageous and less represented group. The ultimate object would be to achieve real equality among all the sub-groups in the larger group.” He added, “I find that the attitude of the categories in the Presidential List opposing such a sub-classification is that of a person in the general compartment of the train. Firstly, the persons outside the compartment struggled to get into the general compartment. However, once they get inside it, they make every attempt possible to prevent the persons outside such a compartment from entering it.” Justice Gavai opined that the categories in the Presidential List who have already enjoyed a major chunk of reservations should not object to the State providing special treatment to those who have been deprived of such a benefit particularly when such a benefit is not being taken away from them. He concluded that “to achieve real equality as envisaged by this Court in various judicial pronouncements, sub-classification amongst the Scheduled Castes for giving more beneficial treatment is wholly permissible under the Constitution.”
In the dissenting opinion, Justice Trivedi said, “The States have no legislative competence to enact the law for providing reservation or giving preferential treatment to a particular caste/castes by dividing/sub-dividing/sub-classifying or regrouping the castes, races or tribes enumerated as the ‘Scheduled Castes’ in the notification under Article 341. Under the guise of providing reservation or under the pretext of taking affirmative action for the weaker of the weakest sections of the society, the State cannot vary the Presidential List, nor can tinker with Article 341 of the Constitution.” She said, “The Nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney and the Five-Judge Bench in Jarnail Singh had not dealt with the issue of sub-classification of the “Scheduled Castes” in the context of Article 341, much less had dealt with the State’s powers to sub-classify or sub-divide or regroup the castes specified as “Scheduled Castes” under Article 341 of the Constitution, and therefore, it could not be held that the law laid down in E.V. Chinnaiah was not in consonance with Indra Sawhney or Jarnail Singh.” Justice Trivedi further said, “the law laid down by the Five-Judge Bench in E.V. Chinnaiah is the correct law and deserves to be confirmed.”
The bench also expressed their views on the creamy layer issue. Four out of six judges who delivered the majority judgment expressed their views on the creamy layer issue. Justice Gavai said, “The State must evolve a policy for identifying the creamy layer even from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes so as to exclude them from the benefit of affirmative action. In my view, only this and this alone can achieve the real equality as enshrined under the Constitution.” He added, “The question that will have to be posed is, whether equal treatment to unequals in the category of Scheduled Castes would advance the constitutional objective of equality or would thwart it? Can a child of IAS/IPS or Civil Service Officers be equated with a child of a disadvantaged member belonging to Scheduled Castes, studying in a Gram Panchayat/Zilla Parishad school in a village?” He added, “I am therefore of the view that the State must evolve a policy for identifying the creamy layer even from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes so as exclude them from the benefit of affirmative action. In my view, only this and this alone can achieve the real equality as enshrined under the Constitution.”
Justice Gavai said, “However, I may observe that taking into consideration that the Constitution itself recognizes the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to be the most backward section of the society, the parameters for exclusion from affirmative action of the person belonging to this category may not be the same that is applicable to the other classes. If a person from such a category, by bagging the benefit of reservation achieved a position of a peon or maybe a sweeper, he would continue to belong to a socially, economically and educationally backward class. At the same time, the people from this category, who after having availed the benefits of reservation have reached the high echelons in life cannot be considered to be socially, economically and educationally backward so as to continue availing the benefit of affirmative action. They have already reached a stage where on their own accord they should walk out of the special provisions and give way to the deserving and needy.”
Moreover, Justice Nath also commented, “I am also in agreement with the opinion of Brother Justice Gavai that 'creamy layer' principle is also applicable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and that the criteria for exclusion of creamy layer for the purpose of affirmative action could be different from the criteria as applicable to the Other Backward Classes." Considering the same issue, Justice Sharma pointed out, “On the question of applicability of the 'creamy layer principle' to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, I find myself in agreement with the view expressed by Justice Gavai i.e., for the full realization of substantive equality inter se the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the identification of the 'creamy layer' qua Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ought to become a constitutional imperative for the State."
To Conclude, the Supreme Court bench upheld the validity of sub-classification with SC/ST categories with a 6:1 majority and expressed concern over the creamy layer issue.
