Today, On 4th October, The Supreme Court dismissed petitions seeking a review of its earlier judgment on sub-quotas. The petitions challenged the court’s ruling, which had addressed the allocation of quotas within reservation categories. After reviewing the matter, the court found no grounds to reconsider its decision.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, On Friday, dismissed 10 petitions seeking a review of its August ruling, which allowed for sub-classification within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories to allocate reservations in jobs and education for the most marginalized sections of these communities.
The Court stated,
“Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review… has been established. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed.”
The issue of sub-classification within the SC/ST categories has been a matter of debate for many years, particularly focusing on whether it is constitutionally valid to divide these communities into sub-categories to ensure equitable distribution of affirmative action benefits.
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions challenging its August 1 judgment, which upheld the authority of states to sub-classify Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs) based on their relative levels of backwardness to extend reservation benefits.
The petitions reviewed by a seven-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, along with Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma. The Court concluded that no grounds for a review presented.
In its order dated September 24, the Court stated,
“Permission to file the review petitions granted. Applications for listing the review petitions in open Court are rejected. Delay condoned. Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 has been established. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed.”
The original ruling on August 1 overturned the 2005 judgment in EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which had previously held that sub-classification of SC/STs violated Article 341 of the Constitution, granting the President authority to determine the SC/ST list. However, Justice Bela Trivedi dissented, stating that such sub-classification should not be allowed.
The majority judgment, pronounced by the Bench, emphasized,
“The members of SC/ST are not often able to climb up the ladder due to systemic discrimination faced. Article 14 permits sub-classification of caste. Court must check if a class is homogeneous or a class not integrated for a purpose can be further classified.”
The Court pointed out that historical and social evidence demonstrated that SC/ST communities do not constitute a homogeneous group, thereby justifying the sub-classification. However, it was also emphasized that any such sub-classification by a state must be supported by empirical data and should not be politically motivated.
In doing so, the Court overruled the EV Chinnaiah judgment and affirmed the constitutional validity of sub-classification within the SC/ST categories.
Notably, four of the seven judges on the bench Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, and Satish Chandra Sharma advocated for the identification of a “creamy layer” within the SC/ST categories to exclude them from reservation benefits.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of laws in states like Punjab, Tamil Nadu, and others that allow for such sub-classification within the SC/ST groups.
This judgment prompted the filing of review petitions, which the apex court now rejected, reaffirming its original decision.
The case revolved around the legality of the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which allowed for the sub-classification of communities within the reserved categories.
This law had been struck down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, prompting the Punjab government to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.
The laws were challenged based on the 2005 EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh judgment, where a Constitution Bench ruled that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) was contrary to Article 341 of the Constitution. The judgment held that only the President has the authority to determine the SC/ST list and stated that all SCs constitute a homogenous class, which cannot be further divided.
In 2020, the matter was referred to a seven-judge bench after a five-judge bench disagreed with the EV Chinnaiah decision, which declared sub-classification unconstitutional.
During the hearings, the Central government supported the idea of reservation for the most disadvantaged sections and advocated for sub-classification. The States argued that such sub-classification does not violate Article 341, as it does not interfere with the list of SC/STs prepared by the President.
They contended that Article 341 solely addresses the preparation of the SC list, and its scope ends there, leaving room for States to sub-classify SCs based on their level of backwardness to distribute reservation benefits more equitably.
Read Attachment