Supreme Court Allows Sub-Classification Within Scheduled Castes for Separate Quotas to Include More Backwards

The Supreme Court, in a 6-1 ruling by a 7-judge bench, has allowed the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes to grant separate quotas for more backward groups within the SC categories. However, the Court clarified that the state cannot allocate 100% reservation for a sub-class and must justify the sub-classification with empirical data regarding the underrepresentation of the sub-class.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud stated that there were 6 concurring judgments, while Justice Bela Trivedi dissented. The majority overruled the EV Chinniah judgment of 2004, which held that sub-classification is not permissible.
The Bench, consisting of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma, reserved the judgment on February 8 after a three-day hearing.
CJI DY Chandrachud, in the judgment written for himself and Justice Misra, referred to historical evidence suggesting that scheduled castes are not a homogeneous class. He stated that sub-classification does not violate the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, as well as Article 341(2). He also mentioned that there is nothing in Articles 15 and 16 preventing the State from sub-classifying a Caste.
Justice BR Gavai, in his concurring judgment, emphasized the state's duty to give preferential treatment to the more backward communities, acknowledging that certain groups within the SC/ST categories have faced more oppression for centuries. He also pointed out that the grounds for sub-classification are based on a group within the larger category facing more discrimination.

The creamy layer concept should be extended to SC/STs, according to Justice Gavai. He believes that the government should establish a policy to identify affluent individuals within the SC/ST category and exclude them from the benefits of affirmative action. He contends that this is essential for achieving genuine equality.

Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Pankaj Mithal share a similar perspective, advocating for the application of the creamy layer principle to SCs just as it is applied to OBCs. Justice Mithal also suggests that reservation benefits should be limited to the first generation, arguing that if the first generation has already achieved a higher status through reservation, the second generation should not be entitled to the same benefits. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma also supports this viewpoint.

However, Justice Trivedi dissents, asserting that the Presidential list of Scheduled Castes outlined in Article 341 cannot be modified by the States. She emphasizes that any alterations to this list must be made through legislation enacted by the Parliament, and sub-categorization would amount to tampering with the Presidential list. Justice Trivedi stresses the importance of interpreting the rules plainly and literally, highlighting that providing preferential treatment to a sub-category within the Presidential list would deprive other categories within the same group of their benefits. Additionally, she argues that without executive or legislative authority, the States lack the power to sub-categorize castes and their associated benefits. Permitting them to do so would amount to an abuse of power.
In 2020, a 5-judge bench referred a matter to a 7-judge bench in the case State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh. The 5-judge bench felt that the judgment of the coordinate bench in E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394, which held that sub-classification was not permissible, needed to be reconsidered. The referring bench believed that 'EV Chinniah' did not correctly apply the decision of Indira Sawhney v. UOI.

The reference stemmed from a case about the validity of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. The provision required that fifty per cent of the vacancies of the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes in direct recruitment should be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, subject to their availability, by providing first preference from amongst the Scheduled Castes candidates.

In 2010, a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court struck down the provision, relying on the EV Chinnaiah judgment.
In EV Chinnaiah, Justices N.Santosh Hegde, S.N.Variava, B.P.Singh, H.K.Sema, and S.B.Sinha held that all the castes in the Presidential Order under Article 341(1) of the Constitution formed one class of a homogeneous group and could not be further subdivided. Under Article 341(1), the President of India can officially designate certain groups as Scheduled Castes in any State or Union territory. The said designation of SCs for states has to be done in consultation with the Governor and then be publicly notified. The designation can be done amongst the categories of castes, races, tribes, or their sub-groups.

It was further held therein that any legislation concerning Entry 41 of List II (State Public Services; State Public Service Commission) or Entry 25 of List III (Education) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The petitioners in the State Of Punjab And Ors. v Davinder Singh And Ors. C.A. No. 2317/2011 case made several key arguments, including:
1. They argued that EV Chinnaiah wrongly interpreted the observations in Indra Sahwney, specifically regarding sub-classification for SCs/STs. They claimed that the reasoning in EV Chinnaiah was flawed, as Indra Sahwney does not make an express exclusion of SCs when discussing the issue of sub-classification.
2. The petitioners stressed that sub-classification would ensure a diverse and efficient governance, allowing for adequate representation and diversity within the government.
3. They highlighted the heterogeneity within the Scheduled Castes and argued that subclassification is necessary due to the diverse groups and their varied struggles and degrees of discrimination within this category.
4. The petitioners also argued that the Supreme Court's ruling in Chinnaiah failed to apply the test of reasonable classification before concluding that an attempt to subclassify within SC/STs would be violative of Article 14. They emphasized the absence of social data to back the Court's conclusion, contrasting it with the detailed empirical data on backward classes in the Investigative Report of Justice Ramchandra Raju.

On the other hand, the respondents contended that the purpose of Article 341 was to identify the common thread across the diverse groups within the SCs and establish their homogeneity under a common class or 'Scheduled Class' altogether.
They further stressed that subclassification is only within the ambit of the Parliament and not the states, as provided under Article 341(2). They also argued that subclassification would end up making reservations a fruitless exercise for other subclasses within the SC category, as there would not be a unified implementation of benefits.

Both parties were represented by notable advocates, and the case details are expected to be updated after the judgment is uploaded.