In a significant ruling on August 01st, the Supreme Court of India delivered a 6:1 verdict permitting the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to facilitate separate quotas for the more marginalised members within these backward communities.
The Constitution bench, chaired by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, overturned a 2004 decision which had deemed that state governments lacked the authority to create sub-categories of SCs for the purpose of reservation. Justice Bela Trivedi expressed her dissenting opinion on the matter. The verdict overrules the 2004 judgment of a five-judge Constitution bench in the case of EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh.
Apex Court gave its nod allowing for a more nuanced allocation of reservation benefits in jobs and education. This decision aims to address the disparities within these historically marginalised communities by ensuring that the most disadvantaged groups receive a fair share of the benefits.
This pivotal decision originated from a case concerning the state of Punjab, where in 2010, a High Court ruling invalidated a law that allocated half the SC reservations to the Valmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities. This High Court decision was subsequently challenged in the Supreme Court.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court recognized the necessity of empowering the particularly disadvantaged castes within the SC/ST communities, which have not benefited equally under the existing reservation system. The proposal aims to ensure that the benefits of reservation reach those who are at the lowest strata within these groups.
In a separate but concurring ruling, Justice B R Gavai called upon the State to evolve a policy to identify creamy layers among the SC/ST category and take them out of the fold of affirmative action. He said this is the only way to gain true equality.
Justices Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, and Satish Chandra Sharma concurred with the majority ruling while Justice Bela M Trivedi dissented.
The CJI’s ruling on historical and empirical evidence indicates that SCs and STs are not a homogenous group. The judgment said that Article 14 of the Constitution permits sub-classification of a class which is not similarly situated for the purpose of the law.