Supreme Court Permits Sub-Classification in SC/ST Categories for Reservations

The Supreme Court, with a Constitution bench of seven judges, has finally agreed that there could be sub-classification within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories so that more marginalized groups amongst these communities could get reservations in jobs and education. By a 6:1 majority, it has struck down the 2004 judgment in the case of EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andra Pradesh. A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud passed the judgment, with Justice Bela Trivedi dissenting.

Source: Mint

Sub-classification and Sub-categorization– By Supreme Court

The judgment was delivered through six separate opinions. While explaining the judgment, Chief Justice Chandrachud differentiated between “sub-classification” and “sub-categorization”, and said states might have to sub-categorize reserved category communities to ensure that the benefits in fact reach the most disadvantaged groups.

“There are six opinions. Mine is for Justice Manoj Misra and me. A majority of us has overruled the EV Chinnaiah verdict and we hold that sub-classification is permitted. Justice Bela Trivedi has dissented,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said.

Referring to the heightened discrimination against SC/ST members, the Chief Justice opined, “Members of the SC/ST categories suffer from systemic discrimination that throttles their upward mobility. Article 14 permits sub-classification on the grounds of caste. History and empirical data prove Scheduled Castes to be a socially heterogenous class.”

Historical Context

Justice BR Gavai referred to the 1949 speech of Dr BR Ambedkar where he had underlined the importance of having social democracy along with political democracy. “There are different hardships and backwardnesses in Scheduled Castes. EV Chinnaiah was wrongly decided. Real equality has to be achieved, not political mileage to be given by sub-caste reservations,” he said.

Opinions

Justice Trivedi, in her dissenting opinion, criticized the manner in which the three-judge bench referred the matter to a larger bench without assigning reasons. “The order of the three-judge Bench was cryptic and perfunctory. The doctrine of precedents is the very foundation of our system. Reference to reconsider EV Chinnaiah after 15 years without any reasons was erroneous,” she said.

It held that any sub-classification among the backward communities should be informed by empirical data to show inadequate representation.