Overruling EV Chinnaiah, SC maintains that subclassification of SC-STs is acceptable

In a historic ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court maintained the authority of States to divide Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC-STs), two reserved category groups, into distinct groups according to their relative backwardness in order to extend the benefits of reservation [State of Punjab and ors vs Davinder Singh and ors].

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, along with Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, comprised a seven-judge Constitution bench. This bench overruled a 2005 ruling in EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which declared that sub-classification of SC/STs is against Article 341 of the Constitution, which grants the President the authority to compile a list of SC/STs.

Justice Bela Trivedi dissented from the majority and ruled that such sub-classification is not permissible. “The members of SC/ST are not often able to climb up the ladder due to the systemic discrimination faced. Article 14 permits sub-classification of caste. Court must check if a class is homogeneous or and a class not integrated for a purpose can be further classified,” the Bench said pronouncing its majority judgment.

The Court said that historical evidence and social parameters clearly showed that all SC/STs do not constitute a homogenous class.

“Historical evidence shows that depressed class were not homogenous class and social conditions show that all classes under that is not uniform. In state of Madhya Pradesh, out of 25 castes only 9 are scheduled castes,” the Court noted.

Thus-sub-classification of SC/STs by States will not fall foul of Article 341 which confers right on President to prepare the list of SC/STs, the Court said.

“We have also established through historical evidence that Scheduled Castes notified by the President are a heterogenous class. There is nothing in Article 15, 16 and 341 which prevents sub-classification for SCs if there is a rational for distinction and there is a rational nexus for the object sought to be achieved. State can sub- classify for the inadequate representation of some class,” the Court stated.

However, when a State does such sub-classification, the same has to be backed up by empirical data and should not be based on whims or to meet political ends.

“State can adopt any measures to judge inter se backwardness. If the parameter is untouchability, it is not needed that inter se backwardness is also justified on the basis of that but State has to prove it by empirical and quantifiable data. State cannot act on its whims or political expediency and it is amenable to judicial review,” the Court underscored. Based on all the above aspects, the Court proceeded to overrule the EV Chinnaiah judgment.

Pertinently, four of the seven judges on the bench – Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal and Satish Chandra Sharma – called for identification of creamy lawyer among the SC/ST category to take them out of the fold of reservation.

“State must evolve a policy to identify creamy layer among the SC ST category and take them out of the fold of affirmative action (reservation). This is the only way to gain true equality,” Justice Gavai said in his concurring but separate judgment.

Justice Vikram Nath too said the creamy layer principle applicable to OBCs should also apply to the SCs but the criteria for excluding creamy layer of SCs from the ambit of reservation could be different from that applicable to OBCs.

“I am also in agreement with the opinion of brother Justice Gavai that the creamy layer principle is also applicable to Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes and that the criteria for exclusion of creamy lawyer for the purpose of affirmative action could be different from the criteria as applicable to the Other Backward Classes,” Justice Nath said.

Justice Mithal also echoed similar sentiments holding, “Reservation should be meant for only the first generation among a category and if the second generation has come up then benefits of reservation shall not be given and State should see if after reservation the second generation has come shoulder to shoulder with the general category.”

The identification of the creamy layer among SC/STs must become a constitutional requirement, according to Justice Sharma as well. The Court concluded by upholding the legality of statutes in Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and other States that permit this kind of subclassification. In this context, the Court confirmed the validity of the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006.

Impact of the Ruling on SC-STs Reservation Policies

The 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, which grants Arunthathiyars reservations in State government positions and educational institutions within the State’s eighteen percent reservation for Scheduled Castes, was also upheld.

Background

The ruling was made in a dispute involving the subclassification of groups under the reserved category and the legality of the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. The Punjab administration filed an appeal with the highest court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court invalidated this statute.

The laws were contested on the grounds that sub-classification of SCs is against Article 341 of the Constitution, which solely gives the President the authority to compile the list of SC/STs. This ruling was made in the 2005 Constitution Bench decision in EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh.

According to the ruling in the Chinnaiah case, all SCs constitute a single class that is unbreakable. After a five-judge panel disapproved of the ruling in the EV Chinnaiah case, which declared caste sub-categorization to be unlawful, the subject was ultimately submitted to a seven-judge bench of the highest court in 2020.

The Indian central government has supported reservation for the country’s oppressed classes while stating that it supports subclassification. Because the subclassification of SC/STs does not alter the President’s list, the States claimed that it does not infringe Article 341.

The argument put out by States was that Article 341 does not prohibit States from subclassifying SCs according to their level of backwardness in order to extend reservation advantages; rather, it only addresses the creation of the list of SCs.

You might also be interested in – Supreme Court hammers unexpected ruling, refusing to stay Patna High Court’s order