Supreme Court clears the way for sub-classification of SCs, STs for job, college quotas

SC on sub-classification of SC/ST

The Supreme Court on August 1 allowed sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) for grant of reservation in admissions to educational institutes and public jobs, reversing an earlier order which restricted states from offering quota-within-quota.

The order was passed by a 6:1 majority, with Justice Bela Trivedi giving a dissenting opinion. A total of six opinions were read out in the court including that of Trivedi's.

Pronouncing the order, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud said, "The members of SC/ST are not often able to climb up the ladder due to the systemic discrimination faced. Article 14 permits sub-classification of caste."

The court also said the governments must conduct an empirical study before the sub-classification.

Three of the seven judges asked the governments to evolve a policy to identify creamy layer among the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes so that reservation could be provided to those who deserve it more.

Justice BR Gavai, who is to become the first CJI from Dalit community, said "State must evolve a policy to identify creamy layer among the SC ST category and take them out of the fold of affirmative action (reservation). This is the only way to gain true equality."

Quota-within-quota

In February, the seven-judge bench heard submissions from a number of lawyers on the validity of its 2004 judgment, which held that only Parliament and not state legislatures had the power to sub-classify SCs and STs for reservation.

The case originates from a Punjab government's 1975 notification that divided its 25 percent reservation for the Scheduled Castes into two categories.

During the hearing in February, the Centre told the court that it supported the sub-classification as would further the cause of reservation.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the government favoured setting aside the 2004 judgment by a five-judge bench as it restricted states from framing policies by sub-classifying the zone of reservations appropriately.

Mehta said the ruling was against the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity and added sates’ lack of power to sub-classify perpetuated inequality among the reserved classes.

The lawyers sought a review of EV Chinnaiah judgment, which in 2004 had ruled that all SC communities that suffered ostracisation, discrimination and humiliation for centuries represented a homogeneous class, incapable of being sub-categorised.