In a landmark decision today, a seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court has approved sub-classification within the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) categories. This move aims to provide more targeted reservation in jobs and education for the most marginalized groups within these communities.
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, delivered the verdict with a 6:1 majority. Justice Bela Trivedi was the lone dissenter. The ruling overturns a 2004 judgment by a five-judge bench in the EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh case. Joining Chief Justice Chandrachud on the bench were Justice BR Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Misra, and Justice Satish Chandra Mishra.
The Centre had voiced its support for sub-classification during the hearing. Chief Justice Chandrachud distinguished between “sub-classification” and “sub-categorization,” emphasizing the necessity for states to sub-categorize reserved communities to ensure benefits reach the most disadvantaged groups.
ALSO READ: Bilkis Bano case: Supreme Court rejects interim bail petitions
“There are six opinions. Mine is for Justice Manoj Misra and me. A majority of us has overruled EV Chinnaiah (verdict) and we hold sub-classification is permitted. Justice Bela Trivedi has dissented,” Chief Justice Chandrachud stated.
Highlighting the systemic discrimination faced by SC/ST members, Chief Justice Chandrachud noted, “The members of SC/ST categories are not often unable to climb up the ladder due to the systemic discrimination they face. Article 14 permits sub-classification of caste. Historical evidence shows that depressed classes were not a homogenous class.”
Justice BR Gavai referred to a 1949 speech by Dr. BR Ambedkar, asserting, “Unless we have social democracy, there is no use of political democracy.”
Did you know that you can join The Theorist on WhatsApp and stay updated? Click here
Addressing concerns about potential political misuse of reservations, Justice Gavai added, “Hardships and backwardness suffered by some of the Scheduled Castes is different for each caste. EV Chinnaiah was wrongly decided. It was argued that a party can give reservation to a sub-caste to gain political mileage, but I do not agree with this. The ultimate objective would be to realize real equality.”
In her dissent, Justice Trivedi criticized the referral process, stating, “The three-judge bench passed a cryptic and perfunctory order without assigning any reasons. Doctrine of precedents is the core value of our legal system. In the instant case, the reference was made to reconsider EV Chinnaiah without any reasons and that too after 15 years of the judgment. The very reference was itself wrong.”
The court underscored the necessity of empirical data to justify any sub-classification within backward communities, ensuring that it addresses the inadequacy of reservation for the sub-class.
