In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes (SC) which form a socially heterogeneous class is permissible into different groups based on their inter se backwardness for extending the benefits of reservation.
The court also called for identification of creamy layer among the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs) to take them out of the fold of affirmative action (reservation).
The court clarified that while allowing sub-classification, the State cannot earmark 100 per cent reservation for a sub-class. Also, the State has to justify the sub-classification on the basis of empirical data regarding the inadequacy of representation of the sub-class.
A seven-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud held by a 6:1 majority that the further sub-classification of SCs and STs by States can be permitted to ensure the grant of quota to more backward castes inside these groups.
This judgment overrules the 2004 decision in EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, where a five-judge bench had held that sub-classification was not permissible, arguing that SC/STs form homogenous classes.
The bench, which included Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, delivered six separate judgments.
“The State in exercise of its power under Articles 15 (non-discrimination against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth) and 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment) of the Constitution is free to identify the different degrees of social backwardness and provide special provisions (such as reservation) to achieve the specific degree of harm identified,” held the CJI in his 140-page judgement.”Historical and empirical evidence demonstrates that the SCs are a socially heterogeneous class. Thus, the state in exercise of the power under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) can further classify the SCs if (a) there is a rational principle for differentiation; and (b) the rational principle has a nexus with the purpose of sub-classification,” the CJI held.
The ruling means that within the 15 percent reservation for SCs, castes that are deemed more disadvantaged would be given more weightage than others. The ruling will have crucial consequences for states which want to give wider protection to some castes that are grossly underrepresented despite reservation, in comparison to the so-called dominant scheduled castes.
For example, in 2006 Punjab provided 50% quota and first preference to Valmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs in public jobs within the quota meant for the SCs. The ruling recognises that SCs and STs are not homogeneous groups and that certain sub-castes within these communities have historically faced more oppression and marginalisation than others. By allowing sub-classifications, the state can ensure that the benefits of reservations reach the most disadvantaged groups within these categories. Based on rules enacted by the states, there could be a more equitable distribution of reserved job opportunities. For instance, if 25 per cent of the seats in jobs and educational institutions are reserved for SC/ST, first preference could be given to those groups within this category who are more disadvantaged than others.
The CJI, in the majority verdict, held, “If the SCs are not similarly situated for the purposes of the law (or the specific harm identified), there is nothing in Articles 15, 16 and 341 (President’s power to classify SCs) which prevents the State from applying the principle of sub-classification to the class.”Thus, the SCs 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,” Justice Chandrachud said.The CJI made it clear that any decision to sub-classify SCs to grant more quota benefits to a particular caste inside the category can be reviewed judicially.
The Supreme Court was reviewing the constitutional validity of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Act, which depends on whether sub-classifications can be made within the Scheduled Castes or Tribes or if they should be treated as homogenous groups. The top court had reserved the verdict on February 8 on pleas seeking review of the E V Chinnaiah judgement, which in 2004 had ruled that all SC communities which suffered ostracisation, discrimination and humiliation for centuries represented a homogeneous class incapable of being sub-categorised.
CJI Chandrachud authored an opinion for himself and Justice Manoj Misra. Justice Gavai and Justice Mithal have authored separate concurring opinions. Justice Gavai and the CJI have agreed with each other’s conclusion. Justice Nath and Justice Sharma have agreed with the opinions of the CJI and Justice Gavai. Justice Bela Trivedi dissented from the majority and ruled that such sub-classification is not permissible. The majority verdict said the basis of sub-classification has to be justified by “quantifiable and demonstrable data by the states, which cannot act on its whims”.
The six judgements, running into 565 pages, were penned on the contentious issue by the CJI, who wrote for himself and Justice Manoj Misra, and Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, Satish Chandra Mishra and Justice Bela M Trivedi.
Justice Trivedi, in her 85-page dissenting judgement, said it is only Parliament which can include a caste in the SC list or exclude it, and states are not empowered to tinker with it. The SCs, she ruled, are a “homogeneous class” incapable of being sub-classified further.”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 ‘SCs’ in the notification under Article 341,” Justice Trivedi wrote.
The Constitution bench also called for identification of creamy layer among the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs) to take them out of the fold of affirmative action (reservation). Currently the principle of creamy layer applies only to Other Backwards Classes (OBCs) and not SC/STs. However, four of the seven top court judges who were part of the bench which allowed sub-classification of SC/STs also called for creamy layer identification among SC/STs, so that benefits of reservation reach only the backward among such communities.