“The Constitution, as originally framed, acknowledges Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. We are not inclined to entertain this plea. Dismissed,” stated Chief Justice Chandrachud.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India today(20th Aug) rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) requesting a declaration that the caste system is unconstitutional.
READ ALSO:DAY 1 | Is Sub-Classification Permissible Within SC/ST Categories? | In The Supreme Court
The petitioner argued before the bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, that the caste system violates the Constitution and the right to equality.
“The Constitution, as originally framed, acknowledges Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. We are not inclined to entertain this plea. Dismissed,”
stated Chief Justice Chandrachud.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court: ‘All Courts Not to Mention CASTE or RELIGION of Litigants in Case Papers’
In a landmark decision on August 1, a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court revised the framework for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) reservations, marking the first change since these provisions were established in the Constitution in 1950.
In a 6:1 ruling led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, the Bench allowed states to create sub-classifications within SC and ST categories to provide additional protections through fixed sub-quotas for the most backward communities within these groups. This ruling set aside the 2004 Supreme Court decision in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which had previously deemed the SC/ST list as a “homogenous group” that could not be further divided.
Article 341 of the Constitution permits the President to designate certain castes, races, or tribes as SCs, recognizing their historical oppression and granting them 15% reservation in education and public employment. However, some groups within the SC category have been underrepresented compared to others. States have attempted to provide additional protection to these groups, but such efforts have faced judicial challenges.
Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that representation alone does not resolve the struggles faced by lower-caste communities. Justice B.R. Gavai noted that states should identify and exclude the “creamy layer” from SC and ST reservations.
“The previous ruling in Chinnaiah, which deemed subclassification of SCs and STs impermissible, has been overturned,”
declared Chief Justice Chandrachud.
The Bench included Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma. The Court stated that subclassifications among SCs should be based on varying levels of discrimination and can be implemented by states using empirical data on representation in government jobs and educational institutions.
While five justices supported the sub-classification, Justice Trivedi dissented, arguing that states lack the authority to sub-classify castes and reservations without executive or legislative backing.
The Court also clarified that no SC group should be entirely excluded from quota benefits while providing additional reservations to underrepresented communities.
This decision revisits the 2004 ruling in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which had previously restricted subclassification within SC and ST categories.
