More Stories

Informist, Thursday, Aug 1, 2024

 

--SC: Sub-classification within SC, ST category permissible for quota

 

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court today upheld sub-classification within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of reservation. A seven-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud said there were six judgements by it in the current case and the majority, in a 6:1 ruling, overruled a 2005 verdict that sub-classification was not permissible.

 

Justice Bela Trivedi was the sole dissenting voice in the verdict.

 

Chief Justice Chandrachud, speaking for himself and Justice Manoj Misra, said that often, members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were not able to climb up the ladder due to systemic discrimination. The court must check if class is homogeneous, and a class not integrated for a purpose can be further classified, the two judges said.

 

"We have also established through historical evidence that Scheduled Castes notified by the president are a heterogeneous class," the two judges said. Out of the 25 castes in Madhya Pradesh, only nine were Scheduled Castes, they said.

 

The two judges said there was nothing in Articles 15, 16 and 341 that prevented sub-classification of Scheduled Castes if there was a rationale for distinction. The basis of sub-classification had to be justified by quantifiable and demonstrable data by states, it couldn't be based on whims or political expediency, they said, adding that this was amenable to judicial review.

 

Justice Gavai said that in its 1992 judgement relating to reservation, the top court had held that sub-classification in more backward classes was allowed. "...in the same way if a state comes to a conclusion that a caste is not well represented, then it is the duty of the state to give preferential treatment to backward classes and if only a few enjoy benefits among SC, ST, then cannot the state step in? Yes it can."

 

He said hardships and backwardness were different for different castes. "It is the duty of the state to give preferential treatment to the backward communities, only few people within the category of SC/ST are enjoying the reservations." The state, he said, must evolve a policy to identify the creamy layer among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and take them out of the fold of reservation. "While allowing sub-classification, the state cannot hold 100% reservation only for a sub-class," he said.

 

Agreeing with the majority judgement, Justice Vikram Nath said, "Any exercise of sub-classification must be supported with empirical data; I agree that creamy layer principle as applicable to OBCs (Other Backward Caste) also applies to SCs (Scheduled Caste)".

 

Justice Pankaj Mithal said reservation should be meant for only the first generation among a category. "...if the second generation has come up, then benefits of reservation shall not be given and the state should see if, after reservation, the second generation has come shoulder to shoulder with the general category". 

 

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said, "I agree with the view of Justice Gavai on the issue that identification of creamy layer quo SC/STs ought to become a constitutional imperative for the state." 

 

Meanwhile, supporting the 2005 ruling, Justice Trivedi said that in the absence of executive or legislative power, states do not have any competence to sub-classify castes and the benefits reserved for all Scheduled Castes. "Under the guise of providing reservation, states cannot tinker with the presidential list, and it will be nothing but a colorable exercise of power which is impermissible under law," she said.  

 

The apex court was hearing an appeal by the Punjab government against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order. In 2010, the high court had struck down Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. The section provided 50% quota and first preference to Valmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs in public jobs, within the quota meant for Scheduled Castes. The high court had said that this violated the apex court's 2005 verdict.

 

The Centre, along with the Punjab government, had backed sub-classification within reservation.  End

 

Reported by Surya Tripathi

Edited by Avishek Dutta

 

For users of real-time market data terminals, Informist news is available exclusively on the NSE Cogencis WorkStation.

 

Cogencis news is now Informist news. This follows the acquisition of Cogencis Information Services Ltd by NSE Data & Analytics Ltd, a 100% subsidiary of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. As a part of the transaction, the news department of Cogencis has been sold to Informist Media Pvt Ltd.

 

Informist Media Tel +91 (11) 4220-1000

Send comments to feedback@informistmedia.com

 

© Informist Media Pvt. Ltd. 2024. All rights reserved.