SC allows sub-classification of classes; What's the case and what the CJI said?

SC has cleared the way for sub-classification of SCs, STs for job, college quotas.

In a judgment that will reshape the contours of the reservation policy in India, a 7-judge bench (with one judge dissenting) of the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes is permissible to grant separate quotas for more backward groups within the SC categories.

This judgment has overruled the earlier decision in the EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh case, which held that 'Scheduled Castes' notified under Article 341 form one homogeneous group and that sub-categorization is not permissible.

In EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was argued that any reference to “Scheduled Castes” in the Constitution refers only to the list prepared by the President under Article 341, and there is no reference to any sub-classification or division within that list, except possibly for the limited purpose of Article 330, which concerns the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes in the House of People, and is not applicable to the facts of this case.

However, in the current case, while six judges on the bench concurred on granting constitutional approval to sub-classification, Justice Bela M. Trivedi dissented, holding that the Presidential list of Scheduled Castes notified under Article 341 cannot be altered by the States.

The major concluding points highlighted in Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra’s judgment are:

1. Article 14 of the Constitution permits the sub-classification of a class that is not similarly situated for the purpose of the law. The Court, while testing the validity of sub-classification, must determine if the class is a homogeneous integrated class for fulfilling the objective of the sub-classification. If the class is not integrated for the purpose, it can be further classified upon fulfilling the two-pronged intelligible differentia standard.

2. In Indra Sawhney, the Court did not limit the application of sub-classification solely to the Other Backward Classes. The Court upheld the application of the principle to beneficiary classes under Articles 15(4) and 16(4).

3. Article 341(1) does not create a deeming fiction. The term “deemed” in the provision means that the castes or groups notified by the President shall be “regarded as” Scheduled Castes. Even if the deeming fiction is used for creating a constitutional identity, the only logical consequence is that castes included in the list will receive the benefits that the Constitution provides to Scheduled Castes. The operation of the provision does not create an integrated homogeneous class.

4. Sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes does not violate Article 341(2) because the castes are not per se included in or excluded from the List. Sub-classification would violate the provision only if it either provides preference or exclusive benefits to certain castes or groups of Scheduled Castes over all the seats reserved for the class.

5. Historical and empirical evidence demonstrates that Scheduled Castes are a socially heterogeneous class. Thus, the State, in the exercise of its power under Articles 15(4) and 16(4), can further classify Scheduled Castes if (a) there is a rational principle for differentiation; and (b) the rational principle has a nexus with the purpose of sub-classification.

While overruling the Chinnaiah judgment, the Court defined the scope of sub-classification of Scheduled Castes as follows:

(a) The objective of any form of affirmative action, including sub-classification, is to provide substantive equality of opportunity for backward classes. The State can sub-classify based on inadequate representation of certain castes. However, the State must establish that the inadequacy of representation is due to the caste's backwardness.

(b) The State must collect data on inadequacy of representation in the “services of the State” as it serves as an indicator of backwardness.

(c) Article 335 of the Constitution is not a limitation on the exercise of power under Articles 16(1) and 16(4). Rather, it restates the necessity of considering the claims of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public services. Efficiency of administration must be viewed in a manner that promotes inclusion and equality as required by Article 16(1).

While the six judges concurred, Justice Bela Trivedi's dissenting judgment listed important points against sub-classification:

1. The Presidential List specifying “Scheduled Castes” under Article 341 assumes finality upon the publication of the notification. The castes, races, tribes, or groups within them specified in the notification are deemed to be the “Scheduled Castes” for that State or Union Territory, and thus assume the special status of “Scheduled Castes”.

2. Only Parliament, through law, can include or exclude any caste, race, or tribe from the list of “Scheduled Castes” specified in the notification under Clause (1). Such notifications cannot be varied even by the President issuing subsequent notifications.

3. By virtue of the Presidential notification under Article 341, the “Scheduled Castes” come into being. Despite being drawn from different castes, races, or tribes, they attain the special status of “Scheduled Castes” by virtue of the Presidential Notification. The etymological and historical context of the term “Scheduled Castes” and the Presidential orders make the “Scheduled Castes” a homogeneous class, which cannot be altered by the States.

4. States have no legislative competence to enact laws providing reservation or preferential treatment to particular castes by dividing, subdividing, or regrouping the castes, races, or tribes enumerated as “Scheduled Castes” in the notification under Article 341.

5. The Nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney and the Five-Judge Bench in Jarnail Singh did not address the issue of sub-classification of “Scheduled Castes” in the context of Article 341, nor did they address the State’s powers to sub-classify, subdivide, or regroup the castes specified as “Scheduled Castes” under Article 341. Therefore, it cannot be held that the law laid down in E.V. Chinnaiah is inconsistent with Indra Sawhney or Jarnail Singh.

Now, with state governments empowered to make sub-classifications, many states like Punjab and Tamil Nadu will benefit as they have already implemented sub-classifications. It is an uncontested fact that the reservation policy in India has a political subtext. With the expansion of states' rights to sub-categorize, the politics of reservation will gain momentum. Moreover, the Court has stated that “While the state may embark on an exercise of sub-classification, it must do so based on quantifiable and demonstrable data regarding levels of backwardness and representation in state services. It cannot, in other words, merely act on whims or political expediency. The state's decision is subject to judicial review.” Therefore, while state governments may frequently resort to sub-classification to gain political dividends, the Court must be prepared to review these decisions.