The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) is permissible. This judgment overrules the 2004 decision in EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, where a five-judge bench had held that sub-classification was not permissible, arguing that SC/STs form homogenous classes.
A seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud held by a 6:1 majority that the further sub-classification of SCs and STs by states can be permitted to ensure the grant of quota to more backward castes inside these groups.
The bench, which included Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, delivered six separate judgments.
It held that the principles of social equality would entitle the State to provide preferential treatment to the most backward classes among the scheduled castes.
Read: SC to set conditions on retrospective mineral tax ruling to provide clarity
The Supreme Court was reviewing the constitutional validity of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Act, which depends on whether sub-classifications can be made within the Scheduled Castes or Tribes or if they should be treated as homogenous groups.
{{/usCountry}}The Supreme Court was reviewing the constitutional validity of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Act, which depends on whether sub-classifications can be made within the Scheduled Castes or Tribes or if they should be treated as homogenous groups.
{{/usCountry}}During the hearings, the top court explored the question of whether the children of more advantaged groups within the SC/ST communities should continue to avail of reservations. The court also examined the notion of homogeneity within these classes.
The Union government submitted that it was in favour of the sub-classifications among SCs and STs.
Read: SC highlights need for continuous legislative assessment by executive, judicial oversight
A central issue was whether it is permissible to provide further reservation to the weakest members of these communities, particularly when the benefits of reservation have not adequately trickled down to the most disadvantaged. The court noted disparities where economically sound groups within SC/ST communities have predominantly enjoyed the benefits of reservation, leaving the weakest segments marginalised.
The majority verdict said the basis of sub-classification has to be justified by "quantifiable and demonstrable data by the states, which cannot act on its whims".
The CJI wrote for himself and Justice Misra. Four judges wrote concurring judgments while Justice Trivedi dissented.