Sub-classification in SCs/STs permissible, rules Supreme Court; overrules 2004 verdict in EV Chinnaiah case

Satya Prakash

Advertisement

New Delhi, August 1

Holding that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not homogenous groups, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the State can sub-classify Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to ensure greater reservations for some SC/ST groups over others in public employment and admission to government-run educational institutions.

“Article 14 of the Constitution permits sub-classification of a class which is not similarly situated for the purpose of the law. The Court while testing the validity of sub-classification must determine if the class is a homogenous integrated class for fulfilling the objective of the sub-classification. If the class is not integrated for the purpose, the class can be further classified upon the fulfilment of the two-prong intelligible differentia standard,” a seven-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud said.

By a 6:1 majority, the Bench, however, said such sub-classification can't be based on the whims of governments.

“The objective of any form of affirmative action including sub-classification is to provide substantive equality of opportunity for the backward classes. The State can sub-classify, inter alia, based on inadequate representation of certain castes. However, the State must establish that the inadequacy of representation of a caste/group is because of its backwardness,” the Bench said.

“The State must collect data on the inadequacy of representation in the “services of the State” because it is used as an indicator of backwardness,” it added.

The Bench said, “While the State may embark on an exercise of sub-classification, it must do so on the basis of quantifiable and demonstrable data bearing on levels of backwardness and representation in the services of the State. It cannot in other words merely act on its whims or as a matter of political expediency.

However, the top court clarified that while providing for sub-classification, the State would not be entitled to reserve 100% seats available for Scheduled Castes in favour of a sub-class to the exclusion of other castes in the List in public employment and admissions to educational institutions.

CJI Chandrachud wrote a verdict for himself and Justice Manoj Misra while Justice BR Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma wrote separate but concurring judgments. Justice Bela M Trivedi delivered a dissenting judgment.

The majority overruled the top court’s five-judge Bench verdict in EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) which had ruled that SC/ST communities which suffered ostracisation, discrimination and humiliation for centuries formed homogeneous groups, incapable of being sub-categorised.

However, Justice Trivedi agreed with the 2004 verdict in EV Chinnaiah case that only Parliament, and not state legislatures, was empowered to exclude castes deemed to be SC from the Presidential List under Article 341 of the Constitution. She held that states had no legislative competence to do it.

The verdict came on a batch of petitions on the contentious issue, including one filed by the Punjab Government challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s 2010 verdict declaring unconstitutional the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which provided for 50 per cent reservation with the first preference' to 'Valmikis' and 'Mazhabi Sikhs' – who constitute 41.9% of the total Scheduled Castes population in Punjab -- in public employment within the quota meant for SCs.

Similarly, the Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars (Special Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State within the Reservation for the Scheduled Castes) Act, 2009, which gave reservation to Arunthathiyars in educational institutions and State Government jobs within the state's 18% quota for SCs was also challenged before the top court.

After laying down the law on the issue, the Constitution Bench left it to the CJI to send the individual cases to appropriate Benches for adjudication.

During the hearing, the Centre had supported sub-classification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for “proliferation and deepening of reservation benefits” and to ensure a “trickle-down effect of reservations”.

Noting that reservation benefits available are “limited in nature” and “the said seats and the posts are even otherwise a scarce commodity”, the Centre had said, therefore, it’s required to be re-distributed rationally.

“Considering the scarce nature (of government jobs and seats in educational institutions), it is important that the commodity is distributed efficiently and for the actual purpose it seeks to achieve,” the Solicitor General had submitted.