SUB CATEGORISATION
In a 6:1 landmark verdict, the Supreme Court on August 1 allowed the sub-categorisation of scheduled castes in reservations, allowing wider protection for underrepresented groups.
A seven-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has thus ruled on whether sub-classification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is permissible for the purpose of reservation.
WHO CAN BE CATEGORISED AS MOST VULNERABLE?
Empirical data, “reasonable” grounds that will be subject to judicial scrutiny, avoiding the perils of “micro-classification” — this is how the Supreme Court, in its verdict allowing sub-classification within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes quotas, has underlined the principles that will operationalise the new framework.
“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.”–Justice BR Gavai
CAN ALL THE SEATS RESERVED FOR SC/ST BE AVAILABLE FOR THE SUB-CLASS?
The opinion also explicitly states how states cannot sub-classify the quota. “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,” the ruling stated.
THE BACKGROUND
In January, 2024, the seven-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud reserved judgment in the sub-classification among Scheduled Castes (SCs) case.
WHY WAS THE CASE FILED IN SC?
Some states have argued that despite reservation, some castes are grossly underrepresented in comparison with the so-called dominant Scheduled Castes.
They want to create a separate quota for such castes within the SC quota of 15%, to ensure that the benefits are adequately distributed.
EV CHINNAIAH V/S STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: THE CASE UNDER SCANNER
In 2004, a five-judge Constitution Bench in ‘E.V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh’ held that:
- Only the President could notify which communities could receive reservation benefits as per Article 341 of the Constitution, and that states did not have the power to tamper with this.
- In ‘E.V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh’, the Supreme Court struck down the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 for being violative of the right to equality.
A number of states have now returned to the Supreme Court to argue against the Chinnaiah decision, claiming that states do have the power to make sure reservation benefits are distributed to communities that need them the most.
EARLIER ATTEMPTS OF SUB CATEGORISATION
- SUB CATEGORISATION IN PUNJAB:
In 1975, the Punjab government issued a notification dividing its SC reservation at that time into two categories.
- In the first category, seats were reserved solely for the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities. Under the policy, they were to be given first preference for reservation in education and public employment.
- The second category consisted of the rest of the SC communities.
- SUB CATEGORISATION IN ANDHRA PRADESH:
The Andhra Pradesh Govt. passed The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000. The law contained an expansive list of Scheduled Caste communities in the state and the quota of reservation benefits provided to each of them.
THE LITIGATIONS
- In ‘E.V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh’, the Supreme Court struck down the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 for being violative of the right to equality.
- Two years after the apex court ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in ‘Dr. Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab’ struck down the 1975 notification.
- In October 2006, four months after the Punjab & Haryana High Court struck down the notification, the Punjab government attempted to bring back the law by passing The Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006.
- In 2010, the High Court once again struck down this provision. The Punjab government then moved the Supreme Court.
WHY THE SC IS RECONSIDERING THE CHINNAIAH CASE?
- In 2014, the Supreme Court in ‘Davinder Singh v State of Punjab’, referred the appeal to a five-judge Constitution Bench to determine if the 2004 E V Chinnaiah decision required reconsideration, since it needed an inquiry into the interplay of several constitutional provisions.
- In 2020, the Constitution Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra held that the court’s 2004 decision required reconsideration. The ruling noted that the court and the state “cannot be a silent spectator and shut its eyes to stark realities.” The ruling disagreed with the premise that Scheduled Castes are a homogeneous group and said there are “unequals within the list of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and socially and educationally backward classes.”
Note: Connect with Vajirao & Reddy Institute to keep yourself updated with latest UPSC Current Affairs in English.
Note: We upload Current Affairs Except Sunday.
