Juris Centre

Subclassification of ST/SC by State

The Supreme Court of India has made a significant decision by revisiting the ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had allowed states to subcategorize protected groups such as Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). The bench, presided over by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, ruled 6:1 in favor of permitting states to establish subcategories. This decision enables states to extend additional protections, through specific sub-quotas, to the most underprivileged individuals within these designated categories.

BACKGROUND

PUNJAB GOVERNMENT IN 1975 – In 1975, the Punjab government issued a notification that divided the 25% reservation for Scheduled Castes (SC) into two groups. The notification specified that Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs would be given preference for half of the seats allocated for the SC category. At the same time, the remaining SC groups would occupy the other half of the reserved seats. This arrangement stayed in place for 31 years until a similar law in Andhra Pradesh was overturned by the Supreme Court in the case of V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004). The Supreme Court’s ruling challenged the sub-classification within the SC category.

[1]E.V.CHINNAIAH V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 2004 –  In this judgment, it is crucial to note that, Under Article 341, state governments are not authorized to classify any group of people as Scheduled Castes; this authority lies exclusively with the President. The Scheduled Caste category, as defined under Article 341, is considered a singular “homogeneous” group. Consequently, any sub-classification within this group would lead to differential treatment of individuals within the same category, thus infringing upon the right to equality.

After the Chinnaiah decision, the Punjab government enacted the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 (the Act). The Punjab government posited that the ruling in E.V. Chinnaiah was incongruent with the Supreme Court’s nine-judge bench decision in Indra Sawhney v Union of India (1992).

Furthermore, the Punjab government contended that E.V. Chinnaiah misconstrued this to signify that only the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category could be sub-classified, not the Scheduled Caste (SC) category. The sub-classification introduced by the Punjab government was sanctioned by Article 16(4) and advanced the pursuit of adequate representation.

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Jarnail Singh v Lacchmi Narain Gupta sanctioned sub-classification within the SC category by recognizing the concept of the ‘creamy layer’.

FIVE-JUDGE BENCH DECISION IN 2020 – The five-judge bench stated that under Article 342A (added in 2018), which gives the President the authority to compile a list of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs), subclassification is allowed.

According to this, the constitutional clauses recognizing Scheduled Tribes (Article 342), Scheduled Castes (Article 341), and SEBCs (Article 342A) must all be interpreted “pari materia,” or “on the same matter.”According to the decision, subclassification was allowed within the SEBC category, so it cannot be prohibited for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes categories.The Supreme Court further stated that to implement the spirit of the right to equality, the State must be allowed to adopt subclassification, since it is competent to award reservation for the SC and ST categories under Articles 15 and 16.Since the interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 16, 338, 341, 342, and 342A was at stake in the appeal against E.V. Chinnaiah, it was imperative to make sure that Indra Sawhney and other Supreme Court decisions were appropriately followed.

[2]COURTS OBSERVATION IN SEVEN-BENCH DECISION IN 2024

On August 1, 2024, the Supreme Court, with a 6:1 majority, confirmed the legality of subclassification within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Categories. This decision permits states to allocate seats within the quotas designated for these groups based on greater disadvantage or backwardness.

The majority opinion, articulated by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud representing himself, Justice Manoj Misra, as well as Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, and Satish Chandra Sharma, underscored the heterogeneity within the Scheduled Caste community. They contended that treating the Scheduled Caste community as a homogenous entity undermines the essence of reservations.

CJI DY Chandrachud underscored the significance of substantive equality over formal equality. He presented historical and empirical evidence to substantiate the necessity for subclassification to channel reservation benefits toward the most marginalized groups, thereby propelling substantive equality. In his remarks, Chandrachud made reference to the 1992 judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. In this instance, a nine-judge Constitution bench of the court permitted sub-classification within the overarching category of backward classes. It was emphasized that the 1992 judgment did not restrict the application of sub-classification solely to the Other Backward Classes.

The rulings by Chandrachud and Gavai constrained the states’ ability to create subclassifications. According to Chandrachud, subclassification within the Scheduled Castes would only be permissible with a reasonable rationale and empirical evidence supporting the distinction between subgroups. Gavai insisted that states must establish, through factual evidence, that the subgroup receiving special treatment is underrepresented relative to other castes on the list.

In essence, the decision sanctioning subclassification within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Categories based on greater disadvantage or backwardness incorporates rigorous measures to prevent the misappropriation of subclassification for political expediency and ensures equitable distribution of reservation benefit.

INTRODUCTION OF CREAMY LAYER

One of the propositions forwarded by the supporting side was the implementation of the “creamy layer” theory to reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, aimed at curbing the advantageous access of more affluent and better-developed members of these groups to affirmative action programs. However, it is imperative to note that this recommendation lacks legal enforceability as the application of the creamy layer principle was not within the scope of the court’s inquiries or the focus of any arguments presented during the legal proceedings.

[3]Justice Gavai, the sole Scheduled Caste member on the court, elucidated that the creamy layer principle has been expounded by several Supreme Court rulings to encompass reservations for promotions for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe members in public service. He emphasized that the implementation of the creamy layer approach would serve to rectify any perpetuation of inequality within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and would prevent the concentration of reservation benefits among a select minority. Justice Gavai accentuated that the objective is to ensure that the benefits reach those who are genuinely disadvantaged. However, he was clear that the criteria used to exclude the creamy layer from reservations for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes may differ from those used for the Other Backward Classes. Justices Nath, Mithal, and Sharma concurred with Justice Gavai on this matter.

Justice Mithal’s judgment is notably dedicated to analyzing the suitability of reservation as a means of empowering backward communities, despite this not being the focal point of the original litigation. He advocates for a “fresh re-look” at the reservation policy and the exploration of alternative methods for assisting and uplifting the depressed, downtrodden, and individuals belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or Other Backward Classes (OBC) communities. According to his judgment, any form of assistance or privilege extended to these communities should be based on criteria other than caste, such as economic or financial factors, standard of living, occupation, and the available resources based on their place of residence (urban or rural).

He also proposes that reservation should be limited to the first generation or one generation and should not be extended to the subsequent generation of a beneficiary of reservation. Additionally, he suggests that the state should periodically assess and exclude individuals who, after benefiting from reservation, have elevated their circumstances and are now able to compete on an equal footing with the general category.

DISSECTING OPINION IN THE CASE

Justice Trivedi reaffirmed the validity of the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in her dissenting opinion. She emphasized that individual states lacked the authority to modify the rosters of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Criticizing the decision of a three-judge bench to refer the 2004 ruling to a larger bench, she contended that this action lacked adequate justification and therefore constituted an unauthorized act. [4]Justice Trivedi argued that a lesser bench should not have dismissed a decision made by the Constitution Bench without due cause.

In contrast to the other six justices, Justice Trivedi posited that the Presidential List, delineating the Scheduled Castes under Article 341, attains finality upon its publication. She underscored that only Parliament possesses the prerogative to effect alterations to this list, and firmly asserted that any form of segregation or reorganization undertaken by individual states is impermissible.

Upholding the consistent application of reservations to all SCs and STs as essential for upholding the integrity of these categories, Justice Trivedi cautioned against sub-classification, highlighting the potential for subversion of the intended purpose of reservations and the perpetuation of disparities motivated by non-objective standards.

CHALLENGES

The implementation of any new judgment presents a myriad of challenges. Several key obstacles are elucidated below.

[5]Data Collection and Evidence: Accurate and comprehensive data on the socioeconomic conditions of the diverse subgroups comprising SCs and STs is imperative. States must substantiate their subclassification decisions with empirical evidence. However, ensuring data veracity and mitigating biases can be arduous.

Uniformity vs. Diversity: While subclassification allows for tailored policy formulation, it may engender disparities among states. Striking a balance between addressing localized needs and maintaining consistency poses a formidable challenge. It is essential to ensure that subcategories do not undermine the overarching objectives of reservation policies.

[6]Political Opposition: Political entities advocating for or against alterations to reservation systems may resist subclassification regulations, leading to potential delays and conflicts.

Social Tensions: Subclassification within SC/ST groups may exacerbate preexisting social tensions, culminating in intra-community discord and schisms.

Administrative Burden: The establishment, maintenance, and updating of subcategories impose a substantial administrative burden on governmental bodies, necessitating augmented staffing and resources.

CONCLUSION

The recent verdict has elicited varied perspectives, demonstrating divergent views on its implications. While a sizable faction extends support to this decision, an equally formidable opposition has emerged.

State authorities are advised to cognizantly consider societal factors, historical biases, and economic disparities. Upholding neutrality and abstaining from politicization is imperative.

Acknowledging sub-classification as an interim remedy for historical inequities is crucial. Prioritizing the advancement of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) alongside general socioeconomic progression is pivotal. The gradual reduction in reliance on reservations is recommended as social and economic conditions ameliorate.

Indubitably, this directive constitutes a seminal paradigm shift in India’s affirmative action policy, centering on the equitable and meticulous allocation of quota benefits within the SC and ST categories.

[2] Explained: Supreme Court’s verdict on sub-classification of SCs and STs, The Indian Express (Aug. 2, 2024), https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/explained-sub-classification-of-sc-st-9489996/.

[3] Vineet Bhalla, Explained: Supreme Court Constitution bench verdict on sub-classification in SC/ST reservations, (Aug. 2, 2024), https://scroll.in/article/1071536/explained-supreme-court-constitution-bench-verdict-on-sub-classification-in-sc-st-reservations.

[4] Vineet Bhalla, Explained: Supreme Court Constitution bench verdict on sub-classification in SC/ST reservations, (Aug. 2, 2024), https://scroll.in/article/1071536/explained-supreme-court-constitution-bench-verdict-on-sub-classification-in-sc-st-reservations.

[5] https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/sc-allows-for-sub-classification-of-scs-and-sts

[6] ClearIAS Team, Sub-classification of SCs and STs, ClearIAS (Aug. 3, 2024), https://www.clearias.com/sub-classification-of-scs-and-sts/.

Author: Harshita Yadav

Leave a comment