State Can Grant Separate Reservation Quotas For More Backwards Within SC/ST Categories: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court by a majority of 6:1 held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes is permissible to grant separate quotas for more backwards within the SC/ST categories.
In a landmark verdict, a 7-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court by a majority of 6:1 held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes is permissible to grant separate quotas for more backwards within the SC/ST categories. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud said that while six out of 7 judges held that sub-classification is permissible, Justice Bela Trivedi dissented.
The top court today overruled a 2004 judgment in E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh which said there cannot be sub-classification of SCs/ST for the purpose of reservation.
CJI DY Chandrachud while pronouncing the verdict said that the Scheduled Castes are not a homogenous group and state governments can sub-classify them to give more weightage in reservation to those who suffered more discrimination among Scheduled Castes.
"Historical and empirical evidence demonstrates that the Scheduled Castes are a socially heterogenous class. Thus, the State in exercise of the power under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) can further classify the Scheduled Castes if (a) there is a rational principle for differentiation; and (b) the rational principle has a nexus with the purpose of sub-classification; and f. The holding in Chinnaiah (supra) that sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes is impermissible is overruled," read the verdict penned by CJI Chandrachud.
The CJI further summarised the scope of sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes:
"i. The objective of any form of affirmative action including subclassification 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;
ii. 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; and
iii. Article 335 of the Constitution is not a limitation on the exercise of power under Articles 16(1) and 16(4). Rather, it is a restatement of the necessity of considering the claims of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in public services. Efficiency of administration must be viewed in a manner which promotes inclusion and equality as required by Article 16(1)," the verdict read.
The top court further said even though the State can sub-classify for the inadequate representation of some classes, it has to prove the need for sub-classification by empirical and quantifiable data. State cannot act on its whims or political expediency and it is amenable to judicial review.
A seven-judge Constitution bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma overruled the 2005 judgment of EV Chinnaiah case by 6:1 majority. The 2005 verdict held that sub-classification of SC/STs is contrary to Article 341 of the Constitution which confers the right on the President to prepare the list of SC/STs. There are six opinions in this verdict.
Need For Excluding Creamy Layer From Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes For Reservations
Four out of six judges who favour sub-classification emphasised the need for applying the creamy layer principle to SC/ST reservations. At present, this is only present in OBC reservations.
Justice BR Gavai in his seperate but concurring opinion said that sub-classification amongst the Scheduled Castes for giving more beneficial treatment is permissible in law and for doing so, the State will have to justify that the group for which more beneficial treatment is provided is inadequately represented as compared to the other castes in the said List; (iv) that while doing so, the State will have to justify the same on the basis of empirical data that a sub-class in whose favour such more beneficial treatment is provided is not adequately represented; (v) that, however, 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; (vi) that such a sub-classification would be permissible only if there is a reservation for a sub-class as well as the larger class."
Justice Gavia also said "that the the finding of M. Nagaraj, Jarnail Singh and Davinder Singh judgments to the effect that creamy layer principle is also applicable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes lays down the correct position of law; (viii) that the criteria for exclusion of the creamy layer from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of affirmative action could be different from the criteria as applicable to the Other Backward Classes."
Justice Vikram Nath in his opinion said that he is generally in agreement with the reasons and conclusions arrived at in the opinions of Chief Justice and Justice Gavai in particular that the holding in E.V.Chinnaih, that sub-classification within Scheduled Castes was impermissible, does not lay down good law and stands over-ruled.
"Further, any exercise involving sub-classification by the State must be supported by empirical data. I am also in agreement with the opinion of Brother Justice Gavai that ‘creamy layer’ principle is also applicable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and that the criteria for exclusion of creamy layer for the purpose of affirmative action could be different from the criteria as applicable to the Other Backward Classes," Justice Vikram Nath opined.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said that he is fully in agreement with both opinions to the extent that the validity of sub-classification
within Scheduled Castes has been held to be constitutionally permissible and the sub-classification should be based on emperical data.
"However, on the question of applicability of the ‘creamy layer principle’ to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, I find myself in
agreement with the view expressed by Justice Gavai i.e., for the full realisation of substantive equality inter se the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the identification of the ‘creamy layer’ qua Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ought to become a constitutional imperative for the State," Justice Sharma said.
Justice Pankaj Mithal stated that reservation has to be only limited to the first generation.
The question came up in the Supreme Court after the Punjab & Haryana High Court struck down the validity of the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which involved the sub-classification of reserved category communities. Following the high court verdict, the Punjab government moved the top court.
A similar law 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, was passed in the state of Tamil Nadu which provided reservation for Arunthathiyars in educational institutions and State government positions within the State's 18% reservation for Scheduled Castes.
The top court today upheld the validity of the laws passed by state of Punjab and Tamil Nadu and held that state governments can provide sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes lists to give more reservations to those who are more backward within the SC/ST category.
Top Headlines
Trending News
