• In a majority verdict, the Supreme Court said states are empowered to make sub-classifications of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for granting quotas inside the reserved category to uplift the more underprivileged castes.

• A seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud held by a 6:1 majority that the further sub-classification of SCs and STs by states can be permitted to ensure grant of quota to more backward castes inside these groups.

Highlights of the verdict:

• Permitting Sub-Classifications: The court allowed states to create sub-classifications within the SC and ST categories. This aims to provide more tailored protections to the most disadvantaged communities within these categories through fixed sub-quotas.

• Overturning E.V. Chinnaiah Decision: The verdict overturned the 2004 Supreme Court decision in E V Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh, which had held that the SC/ST list is a homogenous group that could not be further divided.

• Recognition of Internal Disparities: The Supreme Court acknowledged that there are significant internal disparities within the SC and ST categories. It rejected the notion that these groups are uniform and homogenous.

• Legal Fiction of Presidential List: The court termed the Presidential list of SCs a “legal fiction” used for providing benefits but not implying uniformity within the group.

• State Powers Under Articles 15 and 16: Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution empower states to make special provisions and reservations for SCs and STs. The court held that states could use these powers to identify varying degrees of social backwardness and provide appropriate reservations.

• Criteria for Sub-Classification:  States must provide empirical evidence and a reasonable rationale to justify sub-classifications. The focus should be on achieving “effective representation” rather than merely numerical representation.

• Creamy Layer Concept: Justice Gavai, in his opinion, supported introducing the ‘creamy layer’ principle for SCs and STs, similar to its application for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). This principle aims to ensure that the benefits of reservations reach the most disadvantaged within the community.

• Majority Opinion: Six judges, including Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, were in favor of allowing sub-classifications. They emphasized the need to address internal disparities and provide effective representation to the most disadvantaged sub-groups within the SC and ST categories.

• Dissenting Opinion: Justice Bela Trivedi dissented, maintaining that the SC and ST categories should be treated as homogenous groups without further sub-divisions.

Implications of the Verdict

• Wider Protections: The ruling enables states to extend more focused and effective protections to the most backward communities within the SC and ST categories.

• Empirical Evidence Requirement: States must now demonstrate the need for sub-classifications with substantial data and justification.

• Impact on Reservation Policies: This judgment may lead to changes in how reservations are implemented, with more nuanced approaches to ensure that the benefits reach the most disadvantaged sections within the SC and ST categories.

Factors Leading to the Reference of the Sub-Classification Issue to a Larger Bench

The issue of sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) categories has been contentious for decades. 

Here are the key factors that led to its reference to a larger bench of the Supreme Court:

• E.V. Chinnaiah Case (2004): In the E.V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh case, the Supreme Court held that the SC/ST list is a homogenous group that cannot be further divided. This decision struck down attempts by states to create sub-classifications within the SC category for targeted reservations, asserting that any such differentiation would amount to “tinkering” with the SC list, which only the President and Parliament are empowered to do under Article 341 of the Constitution.

• State-Level Attempts at Sub-Classification: Despite the E.V. Chinnaiah ruling, several states continued to push for sub-classification to address internal disparities within the SC/ST categories. 

For instance:

• In Punjab (1975), a notification was issued giving first preference in SC reservations to the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities.

• In 2006, Punjab reintroduced similar provisions through the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, after the 1975 notification was struck down.

• Judicial Challenges and High Court Decisions: The 2006 Act by Punjab was challenged by Davinder Singh, leading to the Punjab & Haryana High Court striking it down in 2010, citing the E.V. Chinnaiah precedent. This case was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

• Davinder Singh Case and the 2020 Constitution Bench: In the Davinder Singh vs State of Punjab case, the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench, led by Justice Arun Mishra in 2020, noted the need to reconsider the E.V. Chinnaiah decision. The bench acknowledged that the court and the state cannot ignore the stark realities of internal disparities within the SC/ST groups, suggesting that treating these groups as homogenous was unrealistic.

• Reference to a Larger Bench: Given the importance and complexity of the issue, and the fact that the E.V. Chinnaiah decision had been made by a five-judge bench, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a seven-judge bench in February 2024 to resolve whether sub-classification within SCs and STs could be permitted.

Key Issues for Consideration:

The seven-judge bench was tasked with addressing several critical issues, including:

• Whether all castes in the SC list should be treated similarly despite internal disparities.

• Whether states can ‘tinker’ with or sub-classify the Presidential list of SCs under their powers granted by Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution.

• The criteria and justification required for creating sub-classifications.

• The applicability of the ‘creamy layer’ principle to SCs and STs.

(The author is a trainer for Civil Services aspirants.)