Supreme Court Upholds Sub-Classification of Scheduled Castes

Rehan Khan

In a landmark decision, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a six-one majority, ruled that sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs) is permissible to grant separate quotas for more disadvantaged groups within the SC categories. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud announced that there are six judgments, all concurring, which collectively overruled the previous EV Chinniah judgment. Justice Bela Trivedi dissented.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, reserved its judgment on February 8 after a three-day hearing. The main issues considered were whether sub-classification within reserved castes should be allowed and the correctness of the EV Chinniah decision, which had previously held that SCs notified under Article 341 formed one homogenous group and could not be further sub-categorized.

Chief Justice Chandrachud referred to historical evidence suggesting that SCs are not a homogeneous class. He emphasized that sub-classification does not violate the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution nor Article 341(2). “There is nothing in Articles 15 and 16 that prevents the State from sub-classifying a caste,” stated the CJI. However, he noted that the basis of sub-classification must be justified by quantifiable and demonstrable data provided by the States and should be subject to judicial review to prevent actions based on whims or political expediency.

Justice BR Gavai supported the decision, stating that it is the duty of the state to provide preferential treatment to the more backward communities within the SC category. He pointed out that only a few people within the SC/ST categories are currently benefiting from reservations and stressed the importance of recognizing the varying degrees of oppression faced by different groups within these categories. Justice Gavai highlighted the error in the EV Chinnaiah judgment, which assumed that Article 341 is the basis of reservation.

The matter was referred to the seven-judge bench by a five-judge bench in 2020 during the case State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh. The five-judge bench observed that the EV Chinnaiah judgment, which held that sub-classification was not permissible, needed reconsideration. The referral stemmed from the validity of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which was struck down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2010 based on the EV Chinnaiah decision.

Petitioners’ Arguments:

  1. Misinterpretation in EV Chinnaiah: The petitioners argued that the EV Chinnaiah judgment wrongly interpreted the observations in the Indra Sawhney case. They highlighted that in Chinnaiah, the State of Andhra Pradesh’s reliance on Indra Sawhney was rejected because the bench in Chinnaiah observed that Indra Sawhney permitted sub-classification only for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and not for SCs/STs. The petitioners contended that this reasoning is flawed since Indra Sawhney does not explicitly exclude SCs from sub-classification. Indra Sawhney only excluded SCs in the context of limiting the analysis to the ‘creamy layer’ within OBCs.
  2. Diverse and Efficient Governance: The petitioners stressed the importance of having an efficient governance system. They argued that to achieve this, it is essential to incorporate adequate representations through sub-classifications, which would ensure diversity and efficient governance.
  3. Heterogeneity within Scheduled Castes: The petitioners emphasized the prevalence of diverse groups and their varied struggles and degrees of discrimination within the SC category. They argued that occupational differences have led to the creation of subclasses within the backward class, necessitating the need for sub-classification to address these disparities.
  4. Article 341 and Reasonableness Test in Chinnaiah: The petitioners argued that Article 341 only empowers the President to identify and notify particular communities as SCs. This provision is merely the starting point for granting reservations. After designation, the legislative competence of the state is activated under Articles 246 read with Lists 2 and 3 of the 7th Schedule, in light of the Fundamental Rights enshrined under Articles 15(4) and 16(4). They contended that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chinnaiah failed to apply the twin test of reasonable classification before concluding that an attempt to sub-classify within SC/STs would violate Article 14. The Apex Court overlooked the existence of social data to support its conclusion, contrasting with the detailed empirical data on backward classes in the Investigative Report of Justice Ramchandra Raju, which the High Court originally relied upon when EV Chinnaiah came before it for consideration.

Respondents’ Arguments:

  1. Common Thread Across Diverse Groups: The respondents contended that the purpose of Article 341 was to identify the common thread across diverse groups within the SCs, which is the commonality of discrimination and backwardness. They argued that homogeneity is established the moment a set of diverse groups are grouped together under a common class of Scheduled Castes.
  2. Sub-classification Ambit: The respondents argued that sub-classification is within the ambit of the Parliament and not the states, as provided under Article 341(2). They stressed that the discretion to include or exclude a particular backward class within the SC list lies constitutionally with the President. While state governments can raise concerns on new identifications to the list, they must do so through a different route.
  3. Article 341 (2) Provisions: The respondents highlighted Article 341 (2), which provides that Parliament may by law include or exclude any caste, race, or tribe, or part of or group within any caste, race, or tribe from the SC list. They argued that a notification issued under clause (1) cannot be varied by any subsequent notification, except as provided by Parliament.
  4. Unified Implementation of Reservations: The respondents argued that sub-classification would undermine the unified implementation of reservation benefits. They contended that this would make reservations a fruitless exercise for other subclasses within the SC category, resulting in a ‘reverse Pran-Pratishtha.’
  5. Submissions by Senior Advocates: From the respondents’ side, Senior Advocate Manoj Swarup made substantial submissions, followed by other intervenors, including Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde and others, supporting the argument that sub-classification should be a parliamentary prerogative and not within the jurisdiction of the states.

Case title: The State Of Punjab And Ors. v Davinder Singh And Ors.

Case no.: C.A. No. 2317/2011

Bench: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Bela M Trivedi, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma