State Governments can sub-classify SCs for quota, rules Supreme CourtPublished / Updated- August 01, 2024 10:47 IST THE HINDU BUREAUThe
Supreme Court on August 1 pronounced its verdict on the legal question of whether a State Government is empowered to make a sub-classification of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes for grant of reservation in admissions and public jobs. |
Photo Credit:
Sushil Kumar Verma Listen to article
Supreme Court Justice Bela M. Trivedi, in dissenting verdict, says States can’t tinker with the SC list notified under Article 341 of ConstitutionA seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, in a majority judgement, overruled the E.V. Chinnaiah verdict, which had determined that State Legislatures cannot sub-classify Scheduled Castes for grant of reservation in admissions and public jobs.Also Read: Cannot treat Scheduled Castes as a homogenous group: Supreme CourtADVERTISEMENTChief Justice Chandrachud said Scheduled Castes are not an integrated or homogenous group.ADVERTISEMENTStates can identify the differing degrees of discrimination or backwardness and focus on greater benefits to sub-classes of Scheduled Castes. This would not violate the President’s exclusive authority under Article 341 to identify Scheduled Castes. The States’s power to sub-classify is subject to judicial review, it said.ALSO READWhat are the Constitution Bench verdicts expected in the second half of 2024? | Explained The State’s power cannot be exercised on its mere whims. There should be empirical data, the top court said. The seven-judge Bench judgement also gave the green signal for the Tamil Nadu Assembly’s legislative competence to enact the Arunthathiyar Reservation Act.Justice B.R. Gavai, in his separate opinion, noted the court, in this case, was dealing with the question of equality among unequals.Continuing to give quota benefits to affluent backward classes defeats the very purpose of reservation. People who have reached a position of affluence riding on the benefits of reservation cannot be considered politically, economically and socially deprived anymore. They have already reached a stage where they should walk out of the provisions of reservation and give way to more deserving categories of SC/ST, he noted.Justice Gavai said his view is that the State must evolve a policy for identifying the creamy layer even within the SC/ST in order to exclude them from the ambit of affirmative action.“In my view, only this, and this alone, would help to reach real equality enshrined under the Constitution,” Justice Gavai read from his opinion.ALSO READThe problems with sub-caste reservationsHe agreed with the Chief Justice’s opinion to overrule the E.V. Chinnaiah judgement, holding the State Governments, based on empirical data, can sub-classify Scheduled Castes for the purpose of extending reservation.Justice Vikram Nath also agreed with the Chief Justice and Justice Gavai that E.V. Chinnaiah should be overruled. He agreed with J. Gavai that there should be a policy to identify the creamy layer among SC/ST.Justice Trivedi dissentsJustice Bela M. Trivedi, in her dissenting note, held that States cannot “tinker” with the Scheduled Caste List by identifying only certain groups within the SC and giving them preferential quota. The quota is meant for the whole of the SC community. The State cannot tinker with the Presidential List on the grounds that it was trying to lift certain groups of the SC community who were worse off from the rest.Justice Trivedi held that the SC community is a homogenous group brought to life by a notification of the President. Scheduled Castes have a special status. It is an amalgam of various groups. Any change in granting of reservation can be done only through Presidential notification. The power of the State was circumscribed to avoid tinkering with the Scheduled Caste List for political reasons, she noted.In the fourth separate opinion on the Bench, Justice Pankaj Mithal agreed with the majority opinions, suggesting an overhaul of the reservation policy.Justice Mithal suggested a different approach to reservation. Instead of caste, reservation ought to be granted based on economic factors, “status of living”, vocation, facilities available, etc. Reservation should be limited to only one generation in a family. If any generation has taken advantage of quota benefits, reservation ought not to be made available to the next generation, Justice Mithal recommended.Justice Satish Chandra Sharma agreed with the majority opinion that it is constitutionally permissible for States to sub-classify Scheduled Castes for the purpose of reservation if it is supported by empirical data.On the application of the creamy layer principle for SC/ST, Justice Sharma agreed with J. Gavai that “for the full realisation of the substantive equality within SC/ST, identification of creamy layer among SC/ST communities ought to be a constitutional imperative.Chief Justice and Justice Manoj Misra shared the same opinion. Justices Gavai, Nath, Mithal and Sharma agree with the Chief Justice on the point of States’ power to sub-classify SCs based on supporting empirical data. They add that the creamy layer principle should apply to SCs/STs. Justice Trivedi delivered the lone dissent on the seven-judge Bench.The top court on February 8 had reserved its order after hearing submissions from Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, senior advocate Kapil Sibal and others.The States represented by senior advocates have sought a review of the E.V. Chinnaiah judgement, which in 2004 had ruled that all SC communities which suffered ostracisation, discrimination and humiliation for centuries represented a homogeneous class, incapable of being sub-categorised.The Bench, also comprising justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Mishra, heard 23 petitions, including the lead one filed by the Punjab Government challenging the 2010 verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.The top court heard a reference to revisit a five-judge Constitution Bench judgment of 2004 in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh in which it was held that SCs and STs are homogenous groups and hence, States cannot further sub-classify them to grant quota inside quota for more deprived and weaker castes in these groups.The Chinnaiah judgment had held that any sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes would violate Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution.The 2004 verdict had stated that only Parliament, and not State legislatures, can exclude castes deemed to be SC from the Presidential List under Article 341 of the Constitution.(With PTI inputs)ADVERTISEMENTRelated TopicsRecommendedHeadlinesNEWS7h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUNEWS8h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUNEWS10h agoTHE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 31,2024KALLOL BHATTACHERJEENEWSJul 31,2024AMARNATH TEWARYNEWSJul 31,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 31,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 31,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 31,2024ABHINAY LAKSHMANNEWSJul 31,2024AARATRIKA BHAUMIKNEWSJul 31,2024T. NANDAKUMARNEWSJul 31,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 31,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 31,2024KRISHNADAS RAJAGOPALNEWSJul 31,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 31,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 31,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 31,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 31,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 31,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 31,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 31,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 31,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 31,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 31,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 31,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 31,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 31,2024SAMBASIVA RAO M.NEWSJul 31,2024SHARATH S. SRIVATSANEWSJul 29,2024AARATRIKA BHAUMIKNEWSJul 29,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 29,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 28,2024THE HINDU BUREAUNEWSJul 28,2024PTINEWSJul 27,2024UDHAV NAIGExplore more from
The HinduSearch for topics, people, articles…IndiaWorldMoviesTechnologye-PaperOlympicsDataHealthOpinionNewsBusinessEntertainmentLife & StyleShow More