With a decisive majority of 6:1, the seven-judge Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud on Thursday ruled in favour of sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). The latest decision overruled the 2004 judgment in the EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh case, which held that there can be no sub-classification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for reservation.
Why is subclassification among SCs being sought?
The Supreme Court in its verdict said that the Scheduled Castes are not an integrated or homogenous group. Notably, many states have argued that some castes among the SCs are underrepresented in reservations as compared to the dominant communities. The argument led to a debate over a sub-quota for these communities within the 15 per cent SC quota to ensure a more equal distribution of reservation benefits. The argument is based on the lines of the creamy layer spectrum under the OBCs quota.
History of subclassification in SCs
However, the sub-classification has remained a contentious issue for long. In 1975, the Punjab government notified a division in the 35 per cent existing SC quota. According to the notification, half of the quota was to be given to Balmikis and Majhabi Sikhs while the rest half was reserved for other castes. A similar law was passed by Andhra Pradesh in 2000 called 'the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000'.
The Andhra law had a comprehensive list of SC communities identified in the state and the quota provided to each of them. The Supreme Court, in 2004, struck down the law asserting that SCs must be considered as a single and homogenous group and that only the President can create a list of SC communities for reservation purposes, not the states. Based on this ruling, the Punjab law was also struck down by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in ‘Dr. Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab case.
The legal battle
The Punjab government argued that the judgement was against the Supreme Court's nine-judge bench judgement in 1992's Indra Sawhney vs Union of India, in which the court ruled that some classes among the OBCs had disparities indicating unequal distribution. The Supreme Court's three-judge bench while hearing the case on August 20, 2014, deemed it fit to be heard by a constitutional bench which has five or more judges, and hence referred to it.
In 2018, the apex court gave a landmark judgement clearing the way for the subclassification. The court cited the concept of a "creamy layer" in OBC and upheld its feasibility in SCs. Later in 2020, Justice Arun Mishra headed the constitution bench and held that the 2004 decision in Chinnaiah required reconsideration. On October 12, 2023, the matter was listed for hearing by a seven-judge bench from January 17, 2024.
ALSO READ | Supreme Court gives nod to separate quotas for marginalised among SC, ST categories
