GS Paper II

News Excerpt:

The Supreme Court recently permitted sub-classification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of granting separate quotas for those more backward within these communities.

More about news:

• In a 6:1 ruling, the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud permitted states to create sub-classifications within the SC and ST categories for the purpose of according wider protections through fixed sub-quotas to the most backward communities within these categories. 
• This overturns the apex court’s 2004 decision in E V Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh, in which it had held that the SC/ST list is a “homogenous group” that cannot be divided further.

Background:

• Article 341 of the Constitution allows the President, through a public notification, to list as SC “castes, races or tribes” that suffered from the historical injustice of untouchability. SC groups are jointly accorded 15% reservation in education and public employment.
• Over the years, some groups within the SC list have been underrepresented compared to others. States have made attempts to extend more protection to these groups, but the issue has run into judicial scrutiny.
• In 1975, Punjab issued a notification giving first preference in SC reservations to the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities, two of the most backward communities in the state. This was challenged in 2004 after the apex court struck down a similar law in Andhra Pradesh in E V Chinnnaiah.
• The court had held that any attempts to create a differentiation within the SC list would essentially amount to tinkering with it, for which the Constitution did not empower states. Article 341 only empowers the President to issue such a notification, and Parliament to make additions or deletions to the list. The court also said that sub-classifying SCs violates the right to equality under Article 14.
• Based on this ruling, in 2006, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Dr. Kishan Pal v State of Punjab struck down the aforementioned 1975 notification. However, the very same year, the Punjab government again passed the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, reintroducing the first preference in reservations for the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities.
• This Act was challenged by Davinder Singh, a member of a non-Balmiki, non-Mazhabi Sikh SC community. The HC, in 2010, struck down the Act, leading to an appeal at the Supreme Court. In 2014, the case was referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench to determine if the E V Chinnaiah decision had to be reconsidered.
• In 2020, the Justice Arun Mishra-headed Constitution Bench in Davinder Singh v State of Punjab 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”. Crucially, it disagreed with the premise that SC are a homogeneous group, saying there are “unequals within the list of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and socially and educationally backward classes.”
• But since this Bench, like in E V Chinnaiah, comprised five judges, a seven-judge Bench heard the issue in February 2024.

Supreme Court’s Judgement:

• The court in E V Chinnaiah held that SC must be treated identically since the Constitution envisaged the same benefits for them, without taking into account their individual relative backwardness. In the current judgment, CJI Chandrachud rejected this premise, stating that “The inclusion [in the Presidential list] does not automatically lead to the formation of a uniform and internally homogenous class which cannot be further classified”.
• The CJI termed the Presidential list of SCs a “legal fiction” — something that does not exist in actuality but is “treated as real and existing for the purpose of law”. A Scheduled Caste is not something that existed before the Constitution came into force, and is recognised so that benefits can be provided to communities in the list. CJI Chandrachud said this legal fiction cannot be “stretched” to claim that there are no “internal differences” among SCs.
• Majority opinion held that “the State in exercise of its power under Articles 15 and 16 is free to identify the different degrees of social backwardness and provide special provisions (such as reservation) to achieve the specific degree of harm identified”.
• The CJI underlined that any form of representation in public services must be in the form of “effective representation”, not merely “numerical representation”. As a result, even if an SC community is represented adequately just by the numbers, they may be barred from achieving “effective” representation by being promoted to higher posts. So the state must prove that the “group/caste carved out from the larger group of Scheduled Castes is more disadvantaged and inadequately represented, and this must be based on quantifiable data”.
• Four of the seven judges on the Bench separately said the government should extend the “creamy layer principle” to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, like in the case of Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. It was necessary to exclude the affluent individuals or families from the benefits of reservation and make room for the really underprivileged within these classes.
• Only the opinion of Justice Gavai bats for introducing the ‘creamy layer’ exception for SCs (and STs) that is already followed for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). This concept places an income ceiling on reservation eligibility, ensuring that the beneficiaries are those in a community that need quotas the most.

Thus, the principle of sub-classification will be applicable to Scheduled Castes if the social positions of the constituents among the castes/groups is not comparable. Sub-categorisation within a class is a constitutional requirement to secure substantive equality.