A seven-judge Constitution bench at Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud is hearing a case concerning the validity of having sub-categories among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Centre on Wednesday (07 Feb 2024) submitted before the Supreme Court that it is committed to reservation while hearing a batch of petitions to decide if sub-classification of the SCs and STs is constitutionally permissible. The Centre informed the court that it was in favour of having sub-classifications among backward classes.
The Central Government has articulated its stance on the contentious issue of reservation sub-classification, asserting its commitment to ensuring equitable distribution of benefits among the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). This assertion came to light during a Supreme Court hearing that delves into the constitutional validity of sub-classifying these reserved categories, a matter that has sparked considerable debate and legal scrutiny.
ALSO READ: DAY 1 | Is Sub-Classification Permissible Within SC/ST Categories? | In The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is currently re-evaluating the legality of creating sub-categories within the SC and ST reservations, a move that could potentially redefine the landscape of reservation policies in India. This re-evaluation stems from a law passed by the Punjab Legislative Assembly in 2006, which aimed at sub-classifying the SCs for reservation in services, but was later struck down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The decision to revisit this issue was prompted by differing opinions on the matter, leading to the referral of the case to a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central Government, underscored the administration’s dedication to reservation policies, emphasizing the need for sub-classification to ensure that the benefits of reservation reach those most in need.
“The most relevant part is that slowly and gradually, this Court on the judicial side had noted that there needs to be some rationing, for the central government. We are committed to reservation. We are here only on sub-classification and this was bothering this court,”
-the SG said.
“To achieve the actual objective behind reservations, the rationalisation is key (while maintaining the permissible levels and extent of reservations) and proliferation and deepening of the reservation benefits is necessary. The sub-classification of the said benefits is a key measure which goes a long way to achieve the said objective. This ensures that there is a trickle-down effect of reservations,”
-Mehta articulated.
The debate over sub-classification also touches on the broader issue of social justice and the effective implementation of reservation policies. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, highlighted the enduring challenges of inequality and the historical context of caste-based discrimination.
“In the 21st century, we are looking at issues of equality and inequality and how to ameliorate the ones who have been humiliated and ostracised for centuries and I do not think we can fathom how they were treated in the caste structure and the constitution makers realised this, and they knew that it will not stop,”
–Sibal remarked.
“Designation is for purposes of the Constitution and is not coterminous with reservation”,
-the CJI observed to which Sibal agreed.
The Supreme Court’s deliberation on this matter also revisits the precedent set by the EV Chinnaiah case, which had previously ruled against the sub-classification of SCs. Critics of the Chinnaiah decision argue that it failed to recognize the heterogeneity within the SC community, thereby overlooking the disparities in the socio-economic conditions among its sub-groups.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and former Attorney General KK Venugopal also weighed in on the discussion, with Venugopal emphasizing the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution.
“Article 14 is the golden thread which runs in the Constitution. When there is no sub-categorisation, the weakest of the weak will fall to the ground and the stronger ones therein will end up getting the lion’s share, thereby negating the entire reason why the reservation was there in the first place,”
–Venugopal argued.
“As far as (Article) 16(4) is concerned, State can always issue. Why cannot the State exclude (from reserved categories) some (communities) who have developed and are not backward any longer?”
–Justice Nath asked.
Sankaranarayanan asserted that States do not have such powers.
States do not have the power to impose caps on quotas, but can only decide on its sub-distribution, he said.
The hearing will continue today (08 Feb 2024).
This ongoing legal discourse not only highlights the complexities involved in implementing reservation policies but also underscores the Central Government’s commitment to refining these policies to achieve true social justice. As the Supreme Court continues to hear arguments and deliberate on this pivotal issue, the outcome could herald significant changes in the way reservation benefits are allocated, ensuring a more equitable and just distribution that aligns with the foundational goals of India’s reservation system.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
