The Supreme Court today upheld the power of States to sub-classify reserved category groups, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, into different groups based on their inter se backwardness for extending the benefits of reservation.
A seven judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud along with Justice BR Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Bela M Trivedi, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma overruled the 2005 judgment of EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh which had held that sub-classification of SC/ST is contrary to Article 341 of the Constitution which confers right on the President to prepare the list of SC/STs.
Nonetheless, Justice Bela Trivedi dissented from the majority and ruled that such sub-classification is not permissible. Pronouncing its majority judgment, the bench said that the members of SC/ST are not often able to climb up the ladder due to the systemic discrimination faced, and Article 14 permits sub-classification of caste. It added that the Court must check if a class is homogeneous or and a class not integrated for a purpose can be further classified.
The Court also mentioned that historical evidence and social parameters clearly showed that all SC/STs do not constitute a homogeneous class. It noted that historical evidence shows that depressed classes were not homogenous classes and social conditions show that all classes under that are not uniform. In the state of Madhya Pradesh, out of 25 castes only 9 are scheduled castes, the court underlined.
The court further remarked that the sub-classification of SC/STs by States will not fall foul of Article 341 which confers the right on the President to prepare the list of SC/STs. The court stated that it also established through historical evidence that Scheduled Castes notified by the President are a heterogenous class. It underlined that there is nothing in Article 15, 16 and 341 which prevents sub-classification for SCs, if there is a rational for distinction and there is a rational nexus for the object sought to be achieved. It also observed that states can sub- classify for the inadequate representation of some class.
Nonetheless, when a State does such sub-classification, the same has to be backed up by empirical data and should not be based on whims or to meet political ends. The top court remarked that the states can adopt any measures to judge inter se backwardness. If the parameter is untouchability, it is not needed that inter se backwardness is also justified on the basis of that but State has to prove it by empirical and quantifiable data. State cannot act on its whims or political expediency and it is amenable to judicial review, it continued.
Considering all the above aspects, the Court proceeded to overrule the EV Chinnaiah judgment.
Notably, four of the seven judges on the bench, namely Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal and Satish Chandra Sharma also called for identification of creamy layer among the SC/ST category to take them out of the fold of reservation.
Justice BR Gavai remarked that states must evolve a policy to identify creamy layer among the SC ST category and take them out of the fold of affirmative action (reservation), and that this is the only way to gain true equality.
Justice Vikram Nath further said the creamy layer principle applicable to OBCs should also apply to the SCs but the criteria for excluding creamy layer of SCs from the ambit of reservation could be different from that applicable to OBCs.
Additionally, Justice Mithal also echoed similar sentiments underlining that reservation should be meant for only the first generation among a category and if the second generation has come up then benefits of reservation shall not be given and the state should see if after reservation the second generation has come shoulder to shoulder with the general category.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma too said that identification of creamy layer among SC/STs must become a constitutional imperative. Subsequently, the Court upheld the validity of laws which provide for such sub-classification in Punjab, Tamil Nadu and other States.