'If you ask me, my ideal would be the society based on liberty, equality and fraternity. An ideal society should be mobile and full of channels of conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts.' -- Dr. B.R.Ambedkar

In a notable judgement on 1st August, 2024, a seven judge constitution bench led by the Chief Justice of India D.Y.Chandrachud, Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the validity of sub- classification of Scheduled Caste category by 6:1 majority. The judgement consist of six concurring opinions and a dissenting opinion delivered by Justice Bela Trivedi. The majority overruled the E.V Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh[1] judgement of 2005.

The apex court's judgement is historical and remarkable in a sense that it can have long lasting effects on India's social as well as political aspects. It was a well needed step towards achieving true equality. As it can be deciphered from Article 14[2] of the Indian Constitution that all human beings are not same in every respect, there needs to be classification based on intelligible differentia for treating people differently when they are not alike. Equality does not mean looking everyone through same lens.

The verdict underscores that the states are now permitted to sub-classify within the SC category and provide the marginalized sections with the benefit of quota within a reserved quota without violating article 14 and 341[3] of the Constitution. The sub classification should be based on the collection of empirical data regarding the inadequacy of representation of the sub class.

Background of the case
In 1975, Punjab issued a notification giving first preference in SC reservations to the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities, two of the most backward communities in the state. The Punjab government divided its existing reservation for Scheduled Castes into these two categories.

30 years later, a five judge bench in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others struck down a similar law passed by Andhra Pradesh stating that the sub classification within the SC category cannot be permitted to the states. The court held that any attempts made to further sub classify the SC category would amount to tinkering with article 341 of the constitution. It only empowers the President to issue a public notification for specifying the caste, races or tribes within the SC with respect to any state or union territory and the Parliament that it can by law include or exclude from the list of SCs.

Following this ruling, in 2006, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Dr. Kishan Pal v State of Punjab struck down the aforementioned 1975 notification. However, in the same year, the Punjab government again passed the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, reintroducing the 50% (first preference) reservations for the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities. This Act was challenged by Davinder Singh, a member of a non-Balmiki, non-Mazhabi Sikh SC community and the same was struck down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court relying on the E.V. Chinnaiah judgement.

In 2014, the matter was referred to a five judge bench for reconsidering the Chinnaiah judgement. The hearing began and the matter was referred to a seven judge bench in 2020.

Issues Involved:

• Whether sub-classification within the reserved castes be allowed.
• The validity of the decision in E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that 'Scheduled Castes' (SCs) notified under Article 341 formed one homogenous group and could not be sub-categorized further.

Arguments of the Petitioners:

1. The Indra Sawhney judgement was wrongly interpreted by E.V. Chinnaiah: In Chinnaiah, the court relied on the observations of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India[4], that only other backward classes are subject to sub-classification, it does not extend to the SCs. The petitioners argued that this reasoning in EV Chinnaiah is incorrect as Indra Sahwney does not expressly exclude SCs when discussing the issue of sub-classification. The Court in Indra Sawhney excluded SCs because it restricted its analysis to the 'creamy layer' within OBCs.
2. Sub classification would ensure governance in an efficient manner: Sub-classification would lead to adequate representation of the backward sections of the society which would result in efficient administration and inclusion of diversity.
3. Scheduled Caste is not solely a homogenous group. Heterogeneity exists: Several communities within the SC category have experienced varying degrees of discrimination and oppression and are grossly underrepresented. Sub-classification is necessary due to the presence of occupational differences.
4. Supreme Court in E.V. Chinnaiah failed to apply the test of reasonability: It did not take into consideration the social data on backwardness before concluding that the sub-classification of the SCs/STs would be violative of Article 14.

Arguments of the Respondents:

1. According to the respondents, if a particular caste, race or tribe gets included within the SC category, it becomes homogenous as per Article 341(1)[5].
2. The sub-classification lies within the boundary of the president and the parliament under Article 341(1) and (2)[6] respectively. State cannot interfere in such matters.
3. It was further contended that if the SC category is further sub-classified, it would lead to disruption of uniform application of benefits.

Final Verdict delivered by the court
The Chief Justice of India held that the sub classification within the SC category would not amount to tinkering with the presidential list under Article 341 because it is not excluding any caste, race or tribe from the SC category. He also observed that in order to come within the ambit of Article 15(4)[7], the class must be educationally and socially backward. Thus, the sates should sub- classify on the basis of social backwardness.

1. Application of creamy layer to SCs
   Justice Gavai observed that states should come up with a policy for identifying creamy layer from the Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes. Those who have already availed the benefits of reservation and reached a higher status in the society should "walk out of their own accord" and give chance to other marginalized and backward communities who are in genuine need of the affirmative action by the states. In the case of Indra Sawhney, the creamy layer principle was applied only to the Other Backward Classes and not extended to the SC/STs.
   
   Justice Vikram Nath also agreed with this opinion and stated that the creamy layer principle should also be applied to the SCs/STs and the criteria for exclusion of creamy layer could be different from that of Other Backward Classes.
    
2. System of reservation needs to revisited
   Justice Mitthal observed that new methods need to be evolved with the continuous changes in the society. The downtrodden and the depreesed sections need to be uplifted. If the first generation in a family has already availed the benefits of reservation and reached a higher status then the second generation should not be entitled to it.
    
3. States have the power to sub classify
   The Chief Justice stated that the state's power to sub classify does amount to tinkering with the presidential list. It has been provided in the Article 15 and 16[8] of the constitution.

The Dissenting Opinion by Justice Bela Trivedi
Justice Trivedi held that Article 341 holds Scheduled Caste as a homogenous caste and states should not interfere in this. SC consists of castes, tribes, races which are downtrodden and marginalized. They are included within the same boundary for the purpose of preferential treatment so they achieve parity with the others.

The states do not have the legislative as well as the executive competency to further sub-classify the SC category as it would amount to tinkering with the presidential list under Article 341(1) and the same is prohibited under Article 341(2).

Conclusion
The Apex Court's verdict needs to be well appreciated because it comes at a time when certain sections of the society have become dominant over the others. There are some backward communities that have become more backward and downtrodden. They are grossly underrepresented. Their access to better education and employment opportunities has been blocked. This historical verdict has increased the scope of inclusivity. It has provided a medium through which the marginalized can now fight for their rights and voice their concerns and needs.

Way Forward:

1. Now that the judiciary has validated the sub-classification of SC by the states, an appropriate policy must be evolved to determine those who have availed the benefits of reservation and should be separated from the backward communities within these groups.
2. The sub-classification must have the element of intelligible differentia and an authoritative and empirical data on which it should be based. Income level, social status or the education level can be taken as the determining factor.
3. Special reservation should be provided to these sub-classified sections among the SC/STs in the fields of education both primary and higher and employment.
4. It was observed that the guidelines on subcategorization need to be laid down by the court in order to prevent the state governments from playing favourites. Therefore the political element should be kept as far as possible so as to achieve the purpose of upliftment backward sub sections which would take us a step closer towards achieving true equality.

End Notes:

• E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394
• Constitution of India, Article 14
• Constitution of India, Article 341
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
• Constitution of India, Article 341(1)
• Constitution of India, Article 341(2)
• Constitution of India, Article 15(4)
• Constitution of India, Article 16

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Vidushi Verma

Authentication No: AG422310947957-10-0824