SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTION BENCH UPHOLDS SUB-CLASSIFICATION OF SCHEDULED CASTES FOR GRANTING SEPARATE QUOTAS / RESERVATION

A seven-Judge Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Hon’ble CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Pankaj Mithal delivered a landmark Judgment dated 01-08-2024 in 6:1 ratio, with the majority holding that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SC) is permissible for granting separate quotas for more backward castes within the SC category for appointments to public services of State and admissions to educational institutions, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi delivered a dissenting opinion holding that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes is not permissible.

Facts

1)  That in the present case the main issue pertained to whether sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes (SC) for reservation purpose is constitutionally permissible.

2) The issue arose when various State Governments including Haryana, Madras, Andhra Pradesh etc had enacted State laws providing for further classification of SCs for the purpose of reservation in educational institutions and public employment, in exercise of powers conferred under Articles 15(4) (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth), 16(4) (Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment) and 341(2) (Scheduled Castes) of the Constitution of India.

3) For instance, the Government of Andhra Pradesh (AP) was of the view that there were inequalities among the Scheduled Castes as far as the distribution of the benefits of reservation was concerned, hence, the State enacted the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act 2000. The said law apportioned the benefits of reservation among Scheduled Castes into four groups – Groups A, B, C and D – in varying percentages: 1% for Group A, 7% for Group B, 6% for Group C and 1% for Group D, subject to the availability of eligible candidates. The said sub-classification was challenged before the AP High Court, which rejected the same.

4) Hence, Appeals were made to the Supreme Court in EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) 1 SCC 394 and the Apex Court (5-Judge Bench) held that sub-classification amongst SCs would not be allowed on various grounds including (a) that the Scheduled Castes notified by the President under Article 341 (1) constitute a “class as a whole” and a sub-classification by the Parliament would interfere with the said Presidential list of SCs. (b) Further, the sub-classification being provided by the Government only included a few selected castes to the exclusion of the other castes falling under the same category of SCs and that would be, as such, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (c) Furthermore, the Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217 (9-Judge Bench) judgment permitted sub-classification only with respect to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The 9-Judge Bench held that OBCs are not a homogenous class, as a particular class of OBCs i.e. a creamy layer was socially and economically more advanced that the other class of OBCs. Hence, the sub-classification providing for exclusion of such creamy lawyer and apportioning reservation for the rest of OBCs was held constitutionally valid. However, the Court in EV Chinnaiah (supra) held that the classification that is justifiably based on the backwardness of a ‘class’ cannot be based on backwardness of a ‘caste’. Hence, the rationale of Indra Sawhney (supra) cannot be applied to a matter that pertained to sub-classification of SCs.

5) The Constitution Bench in EV Chinnaiah (supra), thereby, held as follows:

“If the benefits of reservation are not being distributed equitably, they can be supplemented by additional measures such as training, which would not be contrary to Articles 14 and a further sub-classification amongst the Scheduled Castes would not be reasonable and a uniform yardstick must be adopted to give benefits to the Scheduled Castes.”

“The State could certainly stipulate the legislative policy about the extent of reservations but it could not take away the benefit of reservations on the ground that certain groups among the Scheduled Castes have advanced in the hierarchy.”

6)  Thereafter, various High Courts including the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Hon’ble Madras High Court, applying the EV Chinnaiah (supra) rationale, held their respective State laws, providing for sub-classification amongst SCs, as constitutionally invalid, as the same was not in line with the EV Chinnaiah (supra) judgment of the Supreme Court.

7) However, a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2020) 8 SCC 1, held that the judgment in EV Chinnaiah (supra) required to be revisited by a larger Bench of seven Judges because the said case failed to consider significant aspects bearing on the issue that sub-classification is made to provide equality of opportunity, so as to achieve the purpose of reservation and hence, the same should be allowed for SCs as well, as has been allowed for OBCs in Indra Sawhney (supra) case.

Supreme Court Observations

Thus, the matter came up before a 7-Judge Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the majority observed as follows:

i) That Article 341(1) of the Constitution states that the President in consultation with the Governor of a State, notify and specify the castes, tribes etc which would be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to the particular State / Union Territory, as the case may be. The Bench held that by merely notifying a caste as a Scheduled Caste under Article 341(1), it would not make it a homogenous unit i.e. such notification would not necessarily imply that there would not be any internal differences among the Scheduled Castes. Hence, the inference drawn in EV Chinnaiah (supra) case that the Scheduled Castes are a homogenous class, is erroneous. The Bench further held as follows:

“A caste only becomes a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or a socially and educationally backward caste when the President issues a notification to that effect in the exercise of the power under Articles 341, 342 and 342A respectively. Thus, it could be argued that the word “deemed” in the provision creates a legal fiction for creating a constitutional identity for the castes which are included in the lists.”

“The purpose of the deeming fiction is ‘identification’ of castes which are the Scheduled Castes. The logical corollary of the identification of castes or groups as Scheduled Castes is not that this creates a homogenous unit. The inclusion of certain castes within the Scheduled Caste category is only to demarcate them from other castes which are not included in the category. The inclusion does not automatically lead to the formation of a uniform and internally homogenous class which cannot be further classified.”

The legal fiction which assigns an identity to the Scheduled Castes, separate from other categories cannot be stretched to draw inferences about the existence or non-existence of internal differences among the Scheduled Castes. The only logical consequence is that each of the groups that is included in the list will receive the benefits that the Constitution provides to the Scheduled Castes as a class.”

ii) That further, Article 341(2) stipulates that the Parliament may by law include or exclude any caste, race, or tribe (or part of or group within any caste, race, or tribe) from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in the Presidential notification under Article 341(1) and that such notification ought not be varied by any subsequent notification.

‘The power of Parliament to vary the list includes not merely the power to exclude or include “any caste, race or tribe” but also the power to exclude or include “parts of or groups within any caste, race or tribe”.’

“Sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes for the purposes of affirmative action, including reservation does not include or exclude any caste or group from the List.”

iii) Hence, a reasonable sub-categorization within a class may be permissible to secure substantive equality under Article 15(4), in the event that there is a substantial distinction between two sections of a class.

iv) Furthermore, though Indra Sawhney (supra) judgment specifically made observations about sub-classification of OBCs and not about SCs etc, but that necessarily did not mean that the said judgment excluded sub-classification within SCs. Hence, the rationale provided in EV Chinnaiah (supra) case that the sub-categorization of OBCs would not apply to SCs, as Indra Sawhney (supra) judgment only provided for the former, would not hold good in law.

Conclusion

Thus, based on the aforesaid observations, the Bench concluded that if the Scheduled Castes are not similarly situated i.e. (i) there is social and educational backwardness of different degrees in the same unit and (ii) as a result, a part of the unit is more disadvantaged and inadequately represented in the services of State, then the State may apply the principle of sub-classification to the said heterogeneous unit to ensure substantive equality by uplifting the socially backward class, under Articles 15(4), 16(5) and 341(2). However, such sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes would be permissible only (a) if there is a rational principle for differentiation; and (b) if the rational principle has a nexus with the purpose of sub-classification.

 

Harini Daliparthy

Lead Senior Associate

The Indian Lawyer