On August 6, 2024, the Supreme Court of India allowed the subclassification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), in a landmark ruling that could completely reshape India's quota system. This landmark decision in The State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Davinder Singh & Ors. reverses a 2004 finding in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. (2004) and fundamentally alters the nation's affirmative action policy.

The 6:1 majority ruling by the Supreme Court represents a substantial shift from the earlier position that regarded SCs and STs as monolithic entities. To better address the divergences and needs that differ within these broad categories, this rule permits the formation of subgroups within SCs and STs. The current judgment also supports the application of the "creamy layer" approach, which was formerly exclusive to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) following the 1992 Indra Sawhney case.

The Judgment was delivered by a Constitution Bench of seven Judges comprised of Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud(CJI), Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. The majority of 6:1 held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes among reserved categories is permissible for granting separate quotas for more backward within the SC categories. Justice Bela M. Trivedi held that such sub-classification is not permissible and dissented from the Judgment.

The moment regarding the sub-categorisation of SCs/STs goes long back in history. In 2006, The then Chief Minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh introduced the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. Section 4(5) of the Act reintroduced "first preference" reservations for the Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs—half of the total seats reserved for the SC category would be offered first to these two communities before all other SC groups. On 29 March 2010, the Punjab and Haryana HC struck down this provision of the Act based on the SC's decision in Chinnaiah, leading to a subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in 2018 permitted sub-classification within the SC category by recognizing the 'creamy layer' concept in Jarnail Singh v Lacchmi Narain Gupta. The court held that Scheduled Castes (Article 341), Scheduled Tribes (Article 342), and SEBCs (Article 342A) were 'pari materia' (meaning 'on the same matter') and must therefore be interpreted similarly. The case was later on submitted to 5 judges bench of the Supreme Court which later on 12 October 2023, referred the same for hearings by a 7-judge bench on 17 January 2024.

Two crucial ideas underpin by the ruling of The State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Davinder Singh & Ors.:

1. Sub-Classification: To address particular socio-economic disparities, this technique entails breaking down the broader categories of SCs and STs into smaller sub-groups. Sub-classification attempts to make sure that benefits are distributed more efficiently, helping those who need them the most, by identifying and focusing on the most disadvantaged groups within SCs and STs.
    
2. The Creamy Layer: The principle seeks to deny reservations to more affluent members of a group. By applying this idea to Scheduled Castes, the Court hopes to guarantee that affirmative action helps only those who are underprivileged in these communities. Children of SC people who have previously benefited from reservations shouldn't be treated the same way as those who haven't, according to Justice Gavai. He proposed many standards to distinguish the creamy layer between. He suggested different criteria for identifying the creamy layer among SCs/STs compared to OBCs.

The Supreme Court's decision fundamentally challenges the notion of SCs as a monolithic entity. In the past, the SCs were viewed as a single group, however empirical data and state-level investigations, such the Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars Act (2009) and the Andhra Pradesh Commission of Inquiry in 1996, show that there are substantial intra-group differences. The most marginalized groups among SCs include, for example, the 'Relli' group in Andhra Pradesh, the Arunthathiyars in Tamil Nadu, and the Balmiki-Mazhbi in Punjab and Haryana (as contested in the 2004 case of E.V. Chinnaiah v State of A.P.).

The Scheduled Castes are not all equally backward, the Court acknowledged, and sub-classification could more accurately address these differences. It highlighted that the criteria for sub-classification need not mirror the original basis for categorizing SCs as backward but should focus on addressing contemporary socio-economic disparities. Justice BR Gavai, in his concurring judgment, stated that the state must give preferential treatment to the more backward communities. Only a few people within the category of SC/ST are enjoying the reservations.

Some key questions arose during this ruling:

1. Whether sub-classification amounts to "tinkering" with the Presidential List under Article 341 of the Constitution? The Court clarified that sub-classification does not involve altering the list of recognized SCs but rather aims to refine the distribution of benefits within the existing framework. This approach ensures that the reservation system remains intact while allowing for more targeted assistance. The Chief Justices said that "Sub-classification must ensure "substantive equality" to uplift a socially backward class. It must be based on empirical data that proves "social backwardness" and must have a rational nexus to the legislation in question".
    
2. Does Article 14 permit sub-classification? Answering to this question, the CJI wrote that Article 14 of the Constitution permits sub-classification within reserved categories as it recognizes Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes as a "backward class of citizens." Equality enshrined under Article 14, he said, does not entail "sameness" but that there must be "a parity of treatment under parity of conditions." The provision incorporated substantive equality—the equality of opportunities over equality of treatment. He also stated that "sub-classification is a facet of equality."
    
3. Are Scheduled Castes a homogeneous group? The Chief Justice noted that the Court in Chinnaiah wrongly held that Scheduled Castes were a homogeneous group because they were included in the Presidential List of 1950. He went on to state that there was historical, empirical evidence to show that the Scheduled Castes were a heterogeneous group with an inter-se backwardness. The Court emphasized that the rational basis for sub-classification must be an indicator of social backwardness. It must focus on ensuring effective representation and meaningful participation in public services rather than mere numerical presence. The criterion for determining "adequate representation" should be based on how well a group is represented in state services and governance, reflecting an effective voice rather than just numbers.
    
4. What are the criteria for sub-classification? To minimize politics and executive play over the extension of the 'Quota within Quota' concept to scheduled castes, the court clarified that the sub-categorization of castes within SCs cannot be based on the government's whims or political considerations.
    
5. Are sub-classifications subject to judicial review? The scope of judicial review of reservation policies was laid down in Indra Sawhney. Justice Jeevan Reddy observed that a class meriting reservations must be both backward and inadequately represented in the "services under the state."
    
6. Does Indra Sawhney restrict sub-classification to OBCs? The Court clarified that Indra Sawhney did not limit the application of sub-classification only to the Other Backward Class and upheld the application of the principle to beneficiary classes under Articles 15(4) and 16(4).

Reservation Models for Sub-classified Groups
The Court's decision also addresses the templates that states could utilize to reserve seats for castes that are sub-classified:

1. Model of Preference: Within the SC category, all reserved seats are given preference to more socially backward populations. Like the class under Article 15(4), the beneficiary class under Article 16(4) must consist mostly of socially disadvantaged people. Social backwardness must be the reason of the class's underrepresentation in state services. It is not necessary to base the appropriateness of representation on numerical representation; rather, one must consider the criteria of effective representation.
    
2. Exclusive Reservation Model: Within SCs, some seats are set aside solely for particular subgroups. Gurminder Singh, the Advocate General of Punjab while arguing for the case emphasized that the provision of Articles 15 and 16 uses the phrase "adequately" and not "equally." Therefore, the governmental authority was not obligated to provide the same opportunities to all. Moreover, affording the same benefits to all groups within the category, Singh said, risked "lumping" the benefits into a part of a part.

The bench suggested that both models will need to be scrutinized to ensure their constitutionality and effectiveness in addressing the needs of the most disadvantaged groups. Justice Pankaj Mithal proposed limiting reservation benefits to the first generation, stating:
"If any member of the first generation has reached a higher status through reservation, then the second generation should not be entitled to reservation." This ruling builds on previous Supreme Court observations, including the 2018 Jarnail Singh case, which suggested applying the creamy layer concept to SCs and STs in the context of promotion reservations.

Looking Ahead
The Supreme Court's decision introduces a more nuanced approach to affirmative action, reflecting a deeper understanding of intra-group disparities and the need for targeted support. As states implement these changes, the focus will be on ensuring that sub-classification is applied fairly and transparently, in line with the principles of social justice and equity.

The union government could direct the National Commission for Scheduled caste as well as the state government to execute the judgment as the National Commission for Scheduled caste has been empowered under Article-338(5)(c) to participate in and advise on the planning process of socio-economic development of scheduled castes and to evaluate the progress of their development under the Union and the state.

This ruling marks a pivotal moment in India's reservation policy, aiming to better balance the need for broad-based support with the need to address specific inequalities within SCs and STs. The effectiveness of this approach will be closely watched as it unfolds, shaping the future of affirmative action in the country. The Union government could also take the necessary actions to categorize people only based on their socio-economic condition as opposed to their caste.

References:

• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/08/02/supreme-court-61-verdict-holding-permissibility-of-sub-classification-of-sc-st/
• https://www.scobserver.in/reports/sub-classification-within-reserved-categories-judgement-summary/
• https://www.indiatodayne.in/opinion/story/sub-classification-of-scheduled-castes-is-the-creamy-layer-fair-game-1063631-2024-08-03
• https://www.indiatodayne.in/national/story/supreme-court-calls-for-creamy-layer-exclusion-in-scst-reservations-1062376-2024-08-01?utm_source=topic&utm_medium=topic&utm_campaign=topic
• https://www.scobserver.in/reports/sub-classification-within-reserved-categories-judgement-matrix/
• https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/CJI-DY-Chandrachud-and-Misra-J-state-of-punjab-v-davinder-singh-sub-classification-permissible-among-s.pdf
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/creamy-layer-snatching-job-pie-data-shows-a-chunk-of-sc/st-jobs-remain-unfilled-each-year/articleshow/112258001.cms?from=mdr

Written By:

• Moni Tomar and
• Arjun Sharma