Sub-classification of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes is permissible: SC overrules its EV Chinnaiah judgment
On August 01, 2024 (Thursday), the seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC) of India, with a majority of 6:1, held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes is permissible. The bench overruled its judgment 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 right on the President to prepare the list of SC/STs. The bench constituting Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Bela M Trivedi, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing the matter. Justice Bela M Trivedi dissented from the majority opinion and held that such sub-classifications are not permissible.
The primary issue in the present case, The State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Davinder Singh & Ors., was “whether sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes for reservation is constitutionally permissible.” While hearing the matter, the CJI opined, “Sub-classification is one of the means to achieve substantive equality.” The judgment authored by the CJI includes his and Justice Misra’s opinion. He stated, “The Scheduled Castes can be further classified if: (a) there is a rational principle for differentiation; and (b) if the rational principle has a nexus with the purpose of sub-classification.” The CJI also said, “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.”
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.”
During the proceedings, four out of 6 judges who delivered the majority judgment expressed their views on the creamy layer issue. Justice Gavai, in his judgment, 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?”
Moreover, 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.”
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."
After hearing the contentions from both parties, the SC bench overruled its decision in the EV Chinnaiah case and upheld the sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribed permissible.
