In a groundbreaking judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set a new legal precedent by allowing sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes (SCs) to ensure more equitable distribution of reservations. The 7-judge bench, by a 6-1 majority, has redefined the understanding of social justice within SC categories, emphasising the need to address historical inequalities that exist even within this group. This ruling opens new avenues for states to allocate quotas more effectively to benefit those in the most disadvantaged positions. Here is a broad 10-point briefing of the Supreme Court’s decision on sub-classification of SCs:
1. Overruling EV Chinniah judgment
The Supreme Court overturned the 2004 EV Chinniah judgment, which had previously held that sub-classification of SCs was impermissible. This reversal marks a significant shift in the apex court’s approach allowing for a more nuanced understanding of social inequality within Scheduled Castes.
2. Constitutional alignment
The Supreme Court clarified that sub-classification within SCs does not violate Article 14 (Right to Equality) or Article 341 (which governs the identification of Scheduled Castes) of the Indian Constitution. The majority opinion emphasised that Article 341 merely identifies SCs but does not prevent further categorisation based on genuine need.
3. Empirical justification required
States must justify any sub-classification with concrete empirical data demonstrating the inadequacy of representation for specific sub-groups within SCs. This ensures that such measures are based on actual disparities rather than political expediency or arbitrary decisions.
4. Limitations on state actions
While allowing sub-classification, the Supreme Court has made it clear that states cannot earmark 100 per cent of reservations for any sub-class. This restriction is in place to maintain a balance and prevent the exclusion of other deserving groups within the SC category.
5. Judicial review and oversight
The decision of states to sub-classify SCs is subject to judicial review. This oversight ensures that the process is transparent and that states act within their constitutional boundaries preventing misuse of power.
6. Preferential treatment for more disadvantaged groups
Justice BR Gavai, concurring with the majority, highlighted the need for states to provide preferential treatment to more backward communities within SCs. He pointed out that only a small segment of SCs currently benefits from reservations and more disadvantaged groups deserve additional support to address historical injustices.
7. Introduction of creamy layer concept
The apex court suggested applying the “creamy layer” principle to SCs similar to its application to Other Backward Classes (OBCs). This means that more affluent members of SCs may be excluded from reservation benefits ensuring that affirmative action truly reaches the most deprived sections.
8. Dissenting opinion by Justice Trivedi
Justice Bela Trivedi dissented arguing that any sub-classification would amount to altering the Presidential list of SCs, which can only be done by Parliament. She cautioned that such actions might lead to political manipulation and undermine the integrity of the SC list.
9. Legislative vs executive powers
Justice Trivedi emphasised that only legislative actions can modify the SC list and allowing states to sub-classify castes might be seen as an overreach of executive power. Her dissent pointed out the delicate balance between state and Central authority in matters of social justice.
10. Balancing equality and discrimination
The ruling aims to strike a balance between maintaining equality and addressing discrimination within SCs. By allowing sub-classification, the Supreme Court acknowledges the diverse challenges faced by different sub-groups and provides a legal framework for more targeted support.
This landmark decision represents a significant evolution in India’s approach to affirmative action, potentially paving the way for more effective and equitable reservation policies that better address the complexities of social hierarchy and discrimination within the Scheduled Castes.
Link to article –
10 key takeaways from Supreme Court’s landmark judgment on Scheduled Castes sub-classification
