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.:
- 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.
- 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:
- 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".
- 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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."
- 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:
- 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.
- 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
Please Drop Your Comments