Table of Contents
Why has the Supreme Court upheld States’ right to sub-categorise SCs for quota benefits? | Explained
Premium
In a 6:1 majority ruling, the top court has affirmed the States’ right to sub-classify SC/STs to advance the cause of affirmative action. What do the majority and dissenting opinions stipulate? What are the implications?
The Supreme Court has overruled a 2004 verdict by a five-judge Bench which had held that such sub-classification was not permissible since the SC/STs constituted “homogenous” classes. File
| Photo Credit: The Hindu
In a 6:1 majority ruling, the Supreme Court on August 1 held that sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) categories is permissible to extend the benefit of affirmative action. However, the seven-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud underscored that this must be based on “quantifiable and demonstrable data” instead of political expediency.
In a separate but concurring ruling, Justice B.R. Gavai called upon States to devise a policy to identify and exclude the “creamy layer” (wealthier and more advanced members of a backward class) within the SC/ST categories from reservation benefits. He argued that this is crucial for achieving true equality. Justices Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, and Satish Chandra Sharma concurred with the majority while Justice Bela M. Trivedi dissented.
Accordingly, the top court overruled a 2004 verdict by a five-judge Bench in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh which had held that such sub-classification was not permissible since the SC/STs constituted “homogenous” classes.
What are the Constitution Bench verdicts expected in the second half of 2024? | Explained
What was the case?
Over the years, States have contended that, despite reservation, some castes are grossly underrepresented compared to other dominant SCs and STs. As a result, they have proposed implementing separate quotas for these castes within the existing SC quota of 15% to ensure that benefits are equitably distributed.
In one of the earliest instances of existing reservations being ‘sub-classified’ by a State, the Punjab government in 1975 issued a circular dividing its 25% SC reservation at that time into two categories. The first category reserved seats exclusively for the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities, granting them first preference for reservations in education and public employment. The second category included all other SC communities. This caused considerable outrage since the Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs were considered two of the most economically and educationally backward communities in the State.
After remaining in force for nearly 30 years, the circular encountered legal trouble in 2004 when a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court struck down a similar law introduced by Andhra Pradesh in 2000. In E.V. Chinnaiah, the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 was found to be violative of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The legislation was also found to offend Article 341 of the Constitution, which allows the President to notify a list of SCs for each State to extend reservation benefits. The Bench reasoned that this provision precludes states from “interfering” with the list, including through sub-classification of reserved categories.
Intra-group caste variances, equality and the Court’s gaze
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dr. Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab (2006) struck down the 1975 notification. Despite this, the Punjab government remained persistent and enacted a new law i.e. the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which once again provided first preference to the Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs. The High Court declared this law too to be unconstitutional.
Subsequently, the Punjab government moved the top court in appeal contending that its 2004 decision in E.V. Chinnaiah had erroneously concluded that SC quotas could not be sub-classified. In 2014, in Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court referred the appeal to a five-judge Constitution Bench since the matter raised crucial questions of constitutional importance.
In 2020, the Constitution Bench, led by Justice Arun Mishra, questioned the validity of its earlier verdict in Chinnaiah, noting that there are “unequals within the list of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and socially and educationally backward classes.” Accordingly, a larger seven-judge Bench was constituted to give finality to the issue.
What did the majority rule?
Underscoring that Article 14 of the Constitution casts an obligation on the State to ensure that the same law applies only to those who are “similarly situated”, the majority ruled that sub-classification within the SC/ST categories does not fall foul of the right to equality. “The principle of sub-classification will be applicable to Scheduled Castes if the social positions of the constituents among the castes/groups is not comparable… Sub-categorisation within a class is a constitutional requirement to secure substantive equality”, the Chief Justice reasoned.
Dismissing the petitioners’ arguments, the judges highlighted that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents States from making such sub-classifications. Article 341, they noted, does not limit this power — it merely grants the President the authority to notify certain castes and tribes as SCs and STs. It was also pointed out that studies conducted by field experts reveal that the SCs are not a “homogeneous class.” Instead, some castes within this category are socio-economically and educationally disadvantaged, both compared to the forward castes as well as among the SCs themselves, they asserted.
The court, however, underscored that States can undertake such an exercise only on the basis of “quantifiable and demonstrable data” that highlights the levels of backwardness and representation within government services. “It cannot in other words merely act on its whims or as a matter of political expediency”, it cautioned. Such a decision, the court said, would also be amenable to judicial review when faced with a constitutional challenge.
Assuaging concerns of potential political tinkering, the judges clarified that States are not entitled to earmark 100% reservation for a sub-class to the exclusion of other castes in the President’s List. Relying on the observations of Justice P.B. Sawant in the landmark Indra Sawhney Etc v. Union Of India (1992) decision, Justice Gavai noted in his concurring opinion, “He held that if the reservation is provided only for the more or most backward classes, then the people belonging to higher echelons would grab the open seats whereas the people from more or most backward classes would eat up the entire reservation, leaving the other backward classes high and dry. He, therefore, held that the subclassification of backward classes would be permissible provided the reserved seats are available for backward classes as well as more or most backward classes”.
“In fact, what the people belonging to the categories who are availing of large chunk of reservations and denying a special treatment to the less privileged among them are doing, is what the people from the higher castes have done to these people for centuries as a result of which backward classes were kept away from the mainstream of society for ages, for no fault of theirs……However, when the State endeavours to ensure that the said benefit percolates to the more underprivileged and less adequately represented, the sections from the Scheduled Castes who oppose them, stand in the shoes of those who oppressed them. ”Justice B.R. GavaiThe State of Punjab & Ors v. Davinder Singh & Ors. (2024)
Notably, the majority also advocated for the exclusion of the “creamy layer” from the SC/ST categories to advance the cause of social justice. At present, the principle of excluding the creamy layer from the fold of affirmative action only applies to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and not the SC/STs. “…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 underscored.
Explained | What has the Supreme Court ruled on ‘creamy layer’?
Emphasising the need to exclude affluent families from the benefits of affirmative action to make room for the really underprivileged within these classes, the judge poignantly remarked, “….putting the children of the parents from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who on account of benefit of reservation have reached a high position and ceased to be socially, economically and educationally backward and the children of parents doing manual work in the villages in the same category would defeat the constitutional mandate.”
Why did Justice Trivedi dissent?
Justice Trivedi, the lone dissenter on the Bench, observed that States do not have the power to alter the Presidential list of SCs under Article 341. She pointed out that any inclusions or exclusions from the list can only be done by the Parliament.
“Under the guise of providing reservation states cannot tinker with presidential list and it will be nothing but colorable exercise of power which is impermissible under law. The whole doctrine of the colorable exercise of power is that what is not permitted directly cannot be done indirectly,” she asserted.
The judge further opined that such sub-classifications would defeat the true import of Article 341 —to eradicate any possibility of political factors dictating constitutionally-mandated affirmative action.
What are the potential implications?
The ruling is likely to give impetus to States like Punjab, Bihar, and Tamil Nadu which have previously attempted to introduce separate reservations within the SC/ST categories. For instance, in an election rally in Telangana last year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi promised to constitute a committee to look into the issue — a move that has been read as an attempt by the BJP to woo the Madiga community. The Madigas have claimed that their share of representation was being taken up by another SC community, the Malas.
It is also likely to strengthen the Opposition’s demand for a caste census to ascertain the share of different groups in the reservation pie.
Read Comments
- Copy link
- Telegram
READ LATER
Remove
SEE ALL
PRINT
Related Topics
laws
/
judiciary (system of justice)
/
Reservation
/
The Hindu Explains