Supreme Court Ruling on Sub – Classification of SC/ST categories : A legal view. Authored : Vikash Kumar

LLM, (Graduate) GNLU, Gandhinagar

In a landmark judgement, a seven-judge bench of Supreme Court reframed how the SC/ST quota may operate.

In current 6:1 ruling, the bench headed by CJI D. Y. Chandrachud permitted states to create Sub- classification within the SC/ST Category for the purpose of Affirmative action within the categories.

This Judgement overshadow the apex court decision of E.V. Chinniah v State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) : In the ruling the? Court opined that SC/ST is a “Homogenous Group” that is inseparable.

Law Points:

?Art 341 of Indian constitution allows the president through public notification to list SC “castes, races or tribes” that suffered from the historical injustice of untouchability.

In 1975, State of Punjab issued a notification giving first preference in Schedule Caste to Balmiki and Mazahabi Sikh. This notification was challenged after the verdict of E. V. Chinnaih v State of Andhra Pradesh (2004), The court held that any attempts to create a differentiation within the SC list would essentially amount to trifle with the constitution. The court also said that sub – classification of SCs violates the equality clause under art 14.

In 2006, Punjab and Haryana high Court in Dr. Krishna Pal v. State struck down the notification issued in 1975.

The Punjab government, ergo, again passed the (Punjab SC and Backward Class ‘reservation in service’, Act 2006) reintroduced the first preference to the supra castes.

This was challenged by Davinder Singh the high court struck down the Act of 2006. In appeal to the Supreme Court justice Arun Mishra headed the bench opined E. V. Chinniah requires the reconsideration. The Court obiter that the court and state “can’t be a silent spectator and shut it eyes to stark realities.

Issues before Court in Present case:

1.??Are all castes in the SC list to be treated similarly?

CJI rejects the law laid down under E. V. Chinniah and stated “The inclusion (in the Presidential list) does not automatically lead to formation of uniform and internally“Homogenous Class” which cannot be separated.

The CJI termed Presidential list of SCs a “Legal fiction” : something that does not exist in actual but is ‘treated as real and existing for the purpose of law’. A Schedule caste is not something that existed before the Constitution came into force.

2.???Can state ‘tinker’ with or sub-classify the presidential list?

The majority opinion held that “the State in exercise of its power under Articles 15 and 16 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”.

Justice Gavai said that equality of opportunity (Article 16) must account for the varying social positions of different communities. When the same opportunities are provided to SC communities that are on different footings it “can only mean aggravation of inequality”.

On the subject of SC communities that oppose sub-classification, he said that their “attitude” is akin to “that of a person in the general compartment of the train. Firstly, the persons outside the compartment struggled to get into the general compartment. However, once they get inside it, they make every attempt possible to prevent the persons outside such a compartment from entering it”.

Articles 15(4) of the Constitution gives states the power to make “any special provision” for the advancement of SCs. Article 16(4) gives states the specific power to provide “reservations of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which is not adequately represented in the services of the State”.

3.???What is the yardsticks of sub-classification?

The majority opinion drew stringent redlines for states on how to work out the sub-quotas. States will have to demonstrate a need for wider protections, bring empirical evidence, and have a “reasonable” rationale for classifying sub-groups. This reasoning can be further be tested in court.

The CJI underlined that any form of representation in public services must be in the form of “effective representation”, not merely “numerical representation”. As a result, even if an SC community is represented adequately just by the numbers, they may be barred from achieving “effective” representation by being promoted to higher posts. So the state must prove that the “group/caste carved out from the larger group of Scheduled Castes is more disadvantaged and inadequately represented, and this must be based on quantifiable data”.