Supreme Court Allows Sub-Categorisation in SC Reservation

When India became independent in 1947, Constitutional makers set up a new democracy and included the right to equality for everyone. With this, they also allowed some exceptions to help groups that had been treated unfairly in the past. This led to reservations in education and jobs to help such groups of people catch up with others and be represented in society and government. 

But over time, questions arose about these reservations: How long should they continue? What happens to those who have moved ahead within these groups?

On 1 August 2024, the Supreme Court made a major decision on these issues. This ruling changed how we handle reservation policies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Let's understand this judgment: its background and the 2004 decision that changed it. 

Article 341 of the Constitution

Before understanding this judgment, it's important to have some context of Article 341 of the Indian Constitution. This article gives the President the power to officially recognize certain castes, races, or tribes as Scheduled Castes (SC) if they have historically faced discrimination and untouchability.

However, over time, some groups within the SC category have not been represented as well as others. Different states have tried to give extra help to these underrepresented groups, but these efforts have faced legal challenges.

Background of the Case

So the entire story starts in the year 1975 when the Punjab govt. Issued a notification to give special benefits (in jobs or education) to the 2 most backward communities in Punjab: the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh. 

Fast-forward to 2004. This notification was questioned and challenged because the Supreme Court had previously cancelled a similar notification in Andhra Pradesh in the EV Chinnnaiah case. 

E V Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh

In 2004, the 5-judges bench of the Supreme Court in this case said that 

• The Constitution only allows the President and Parliament, not states, to change the Scheduled Caste list.

• States cannot create sub-groups within the Scheduled Caste list.

• Dividing Scheduled Castes this way violates the right to equality under Article 14.

Now based on this ruling, in 2006, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Dr. Kishan Pal v State of Punjab struck down the Punjab Govt’s 1975 notification for giving preference in SC reservations to the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities. 

Punjab's SC and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act

However, in the very same year, 2006, after the Punjab and Haryana High Court struck down the Punjab Govt's 1975 notification, the Punjab government again passed the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006.

Under this Act, 50% of the vacancies of the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes in direct recruitment were given to these 2 communities as first preference from amongst the other Scheduled Castes candidates. 

Davinder Singh, a member of a non-Balmiki, non-Mazhabi Sikh SC community, challenged this Act. In 2010, the Punjab and Haryana High Court struck down the Act, leading to an appeal at the Supreme Court. 

State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (Present case)

In 2014, the 3-judge bench hearing the appeal referred the matter to a 5-judge Constitution Bench to reconsider the 2004 E.V. Chinnaiah case. 

The Bench in Davinder Singh case pointed out that both the court and the state should not ignore the real problems people face. The Bench said that not all Scheduled Castes are the same; there are differences within them.

But since this Bench, like the earlier one in the E V Chinnaiah case, had only 5 judges, a larger group of 7 judges was needed to review the issue more thoroughly. This larger Bench looked into it in February 2024.

Key Issues in Davinder Singh's Case

1. Can states sub-classify SCs to ensure more reservations of some SC groups over others? 

2. Is sub-classification within the SCs and STs categories permissible?

3. Was the Supreme Court's 5-judge decision in the EV Chinnaiah case correct?

Arguments by Petitioners 

The key contentions of the petitioners (State of Punjab and Union supporting the cause of subclassification in reservations) were:

A. Misinterpretation in the EV Chinnaiah Case: The court in EV Chinnaiah incorrectly interpreted that subclassification was only allowed for OBCs based on the Indra Sahwney case. This was incorrect, as Indra Sahwney didn't explicitly exclude SCs from subclassification.

B. Subclassification for Better Governance: Creating subcategories within reserved groups like SCs could lead to more diverse and effective governance by ensuring all subgroups are represented.

C. Heterogeneity in SCs: There's significant variation in experiences and discrimination levels within SCs due to factors like occupation, supporting the need for subclassification to address specific issues.

D. Article 341: In the Chinnaiah case, Article 341 allows the President to list communities as Scheduled Castes (SCs), which is just the beginning of the process for granting reservations. Once a community is listed, state laws can be created for reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4). 

Arguments Made By The Respondents

A. Homogeneity vs Heterogeneity: Article 341(1) creates 'homogeneity' by grouping various Scheduled Castes groups together under one category. This grouping acknowledges their shared experiences of discrimination.

B. Role of Parliament vs States: Subclassification within Scheduled Castes is the responsibility of Parliament, not state governments, as given in Article 341(2). The President has the constitutional authority to include or exclude specific backward classes from the  Scheduled Castes list, though state governments can raise concerns through other means.

Judgement in the State Of Punjab And Ors. v Davinder Singh And Ors.

In a 6:1 majority, this 7-judge Constitutional bench said:-

• Sub-classification does not violate Articles 14, 341

Scheduled Castes can be further classified without violating the Constitution's equality principle (Article 14) or Article 341(2). There is no conflict with Articles 15 and 16 in creating sub-categories within a caste. Also, states must provide concrete evidence of underrepresentation when forming these sub-groups, not based on arbitrary or political reasons. Additionally, such decisions are subject to judicial review.

• Preferential treatment to backward classes

It is the duty of the state to give preferential treatment to the more backward communities. Only a few people of SC/ST are enjoying reservations. The mistake in EV Chinnaiah's judgment was thinking that Article 341 is the basis of reservation, but it only identifies castes for the purpose of reservation.

The grounds for sub-classification is that a group from the larger group faces more discrimination.

• Creamy layer applicable to SC/STs (Opinion)

Some justices from the Bench opinioned that, the State needs to implement a policy for identifying and excluding the creamy layers within the SC/ST categories. Reservations should be limited to one generation. If the first generation reached a higher status through the reservation, the second generation should not be entitled to it.

• Justice Trivedi's dissent

In her dissent, Justice Trivedi said that the States cannot alter the Presidential list of Scheduled Castes notified under Article 341. Castes can be included or excluded from the Presidential list only by a law passed by the Parliament. Sub-classification will amount to change in the Presidential list unnecessarily. Article 341 was meant to keep political factors out of the SC-ST list.

Any preferential treatment for a subclass within the Presidential list will deprive the other classes within the same category of the benefits.

Aftermath Sub-Classification of SC/ST: Bharat Bandh

21 organisations of ST/SC groups had called for a nationwide strike on 21 August to protest against the Supreme Court's decision to permit the sub-classification of SCs & STs. The organisations have called upon the government to reject this judgement, saying that this can harm the constitutional rights of SCs and STs.

These groups are also demanding a new Act of Parliament on reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs be safeguarded by inclusion in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution. They say this step will protect these provisions from judicial interference and promote social harmony.

They called for an immediate release of government job data based on caste for SC/ST/OBC to ensure fair representation. They also want to establish an Indian Judicial Service for hiring judges from all sections of society, aiming for 50% of higher judiciary positions to be filled by SC, ST, and OBC individuals.

Conclusion

In summary, this decision allows states to subclassify SC/STs without violating Articles 14 and 341, as long as it is based on real data. Also, overruling EV Chinnaiah's judgement, the Supreme Court said SC/STs are not a single homogenous class, and the 'creamy layer' (more advanced individuals) should not benefit from reservations. While allowing subclassification, the state cannot earmark 100% reservation for a subclass.

As an impact of this judgment, states can now give more support to castes that are still very underrepresented, even with reservations, compared to the more dominant Scheduled Castes. But, states cannot reserve 100% of positions for any single sub-group.