The judgment of Apex Court related to sub-classification of Scheduled Caste in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, but it covers both Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe groups.
A seven- judge Constitution bench judgment of Supreme Court delivered on 1st August, 2024, in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, has upheld the validity of sub-classification within Scheduled Caste reservation categories in a six to one majority, overruling the five bench decision in E.V. Chinnaiah versus State of Andhra Pradesh delivered on 05th November,2004. The majority judgment was formed by Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice Manoj Mishra. Justice B.R.Gavai, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice S.C.Sharma. The only dissenting judgment was written by Justice Bela M Trivedi which was in line with overruled E.V. Chinnaiah case judgment.
Impact of SC decision on deprived sections of SC & ST Groups
This Supreme Court decision allows the state governments and UTs to sub-classify the hitherto considered ‘homogenous’ Scheduled Caste group into different classes based on their social and economic backwardness to make enabling provisions to uplift them and bring them on mainstream of the society by providing reservation benefits applicable as per Constitutional provisions. It must be based on empirical data and subject to judicial review so that the political considerations while forming the sub-classification can be checked.
The sub-classification was desirable as some notified castes within the Scheduled Caste community grab the maximum advantage of reservation policy leaving others perpetually behind in the race of development. Along with sub-classification of the Scheduled Caste group, the decision also paves the way for a ‘creamy layer’ identification which was mentioned in the judgment by Justice B.R.Gavai. This may ensure now that a few affluent groups who have risen as per social and economic indicators, by taking advantage of the reservation policy, do not continue to take away the benefits of reservation keeping others deprived.
Justice Mithal noted in his judgement that ‘only children of affluent or urbanised castes are able to access higher education and capitalise on reservation benefits, highlighting a persistent inequality’. Justice Mithal also remarked that ‘reservation, if any, must be restricted to the first generation of the family’.
If properly implement without diluting the decision for political consideration, this will be a great paradigm shift that will ensure uplifting of the most marginalized and unprivileged sections of the scheduled caste, and will ensure formation of an equalitarian society leading to less discontentment and friction on the issues of reaping the fruits of development.
Validity or Grounds for Sub-Classification
There are broadly five grounds that rationally permitted sub-classification of the Scheduled caste group.
(1.) Intelligible Differentia for rationale intended outcome that Article 14 permits :
In simple words a discernible and understandable distinction is ‘intelligible differentia’ and ‘rationale intended outcome’, or ‘rationale nexus’ , goes in line with the constitutional mandate. Therefore, if for purposeful objective a differentiation is made within a group of people, Article 14 permits that. What Article 14 assures is that ‘parity of treatment’ under ‘parity of conditions’. And, with this objective, a law which has created a ‘scheduled caste group’ permits further ‘classification’ or, ‘sub-classification’ with the same objective in mind.
(2.) Heterogeneity in the Scheduled Caste:
The judgment maintained that a ‘heterogeneity’ exists in the Scheduled caste and that there was historical, empirical evidence to show that the Scheduled Castes were a heterogeneous group with an inter-se backwardness. And, this heterogeneous group consisted of different classes based on social, economic and educational indicators of backwardness. Justice Gavai held that the “hardships and the backwardness which these categories have suffered historically would differ from category to category.” Besides, CJI Chandrachud noted that heterogeneity within the group was indicated in the Presidential List itself (under Article 341) because certain castes are notified as Scheduled Castes in specific localities.
(3.) Sub-classification not to tinker the President’s Notification under Article 341:
The State governments and Union Territories will not get any power to delist any caste notified by President under clause (1) of Article 341, nor will they enlist any caste in the existing list of scheduled caste except under provision mentioned in clause(2) of Article 341. This diffused the legal obstacle for formation of sub-class within the existing notified scheduled caste list.
(4.) ‘Caste is Class’ hence sub-classification of SC category legally valid:
The basis for sub-classification from ‘a class that Scheduled Caste group form’, would have been difficult, had this not been made easy by a reading of the Indra Sawhney case (1992) where ‘caste’ has been considered ‘class’, as in the case of OBCs.
(5.) Reservation Provisions mentioned in Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution:
Last but not the least, Reservation Provisions mentioned in Article 15 and Article 16 permits the state for affirmative action or for making special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens.
Opposition of ‘Sub-classification’ and ‘Creamy Layer’ identification is unfortunate:
Apex Court decision, which is an effort to equalize the more deprived sections by providing them opportunities by making a sub-classification is seen, therefore, as a threat by the Scheduled Caste leaders, and their like-minded political friends. It is argued by them that this sub-classification will break the so-called homogeneity or solidarity of the Scheduled Caste which will affect the group politically. In reality, however, they feel that any sub-classification of the Scheduled-Caste will affect their political base which may get narrowed because of sub-classification.
The irony of the situation is that every political party and scheduled caste or backward leader condemn the caste system that has traditionally existed in India, but none seem to be seriously interested in eradicating the ‘caste’ evil, and base their entire politics on caste lines to reap maximum political advantage. Eminent Sociologist Arvind Manilal Shah, who has also been mentioned in the judgement in relation to his field research about existence of heterogeneity in Scheduled Castes in India, had very aptly remarked: “The goal of creating a casteless society in India, written into the Constitution, has become a mirage. And the mirage is moving further away”. (Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. 52, Issue No. 9, 04 Mar, 2017).
The writer is a practising Advocate in Jharkhand High Court and an activist. Views expressed are personal.