States empowered to make sub-classification in SCs, STs for quotas inside reserved category: Supreme Court

The majority verdict said the basis of sub-classification has to be justified by 'quantifiable and demonstrable data by the states, which cannot act on its whims'.

New Delhi: In a path-breaking judgement, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is permissible to provide quota within quota for jobs and admission to educational institutions.

A seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud overruled the 2004 judgment of a five-judge Constitution bench in the case of E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh.

The ruling was rendered by a majority view of 6:1.

Justice Bela M Trivedi, however, dissented with the majority view.

As many as six separate opinions were delivered in the case.

Reading out excerpts of the judgment, the CJI said historical and empirical evidence indicated that the Scheduled Castes are not a homogenous class.

Sub classification within SCs does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, he said.

Justice B R Gavai said it is duty of state to give preferential treatment to the backward communities, only a few people within the category of SC/ST are enjoying the reservations.

He said treating children of those SCs belonging to creamy lawyers similarly to children of a manual scavenger in a village would be unfair.

The majority, however, emphasised on carrying out the exercise of collecting empirical data on the inadequacy of representation to make any classification within SC/STs.

Justice Vikram Nath, in his judgment, stressed on the need for applying creamy layer principle which was applicable to the OBCs to the SC/STs as well.

In her lone dissenting judgment, Justice Trivedi said sub-classification by states would amount to tinkering with the Presidential notification under Article 341(2) of the Constitution.

She held that the provisions under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution are merely enabling provisions and cannot give the power to States to sub-classify the SC/STs.

Justice Pankaj Mithal, agreeing to the majority view, held that the benefit of reservation ought not to be available to the next generation.

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma also said identifying a creamy layer among SC/STs should be imperative for the States.

The apex court had on February 8 reserved its judgement on sub-categorisation in SC/STs for providing quota.

The court heard submissions from the Centre, states and others, on references to revisit a 2004 judgment of a five-judge Constitution bench in the case of EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, in which it was held that the SCs and STs are homogenous groups and hence, States cannot further sub-classify them to grant a quota within a quota for the more deprived and weaker castes in these groups.

The matter before the court arose out of a challenge by the Punjab government and others against a 2010 verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The high court had struck down section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 that provided a 50 per cent quota and the first preference to the “Valmiki” and “Mazhabi Sikh” castes in public jobs within the SC quota.

On August 27, 2020, a five-judge bench differed with the Chinnaiah judgment and referred it for adjudication by a larger bench of seven judges or more for an authoritative pronouncement.