Supreme Court of India - In a landmark decision, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs) to provide separate quotas for more disadvantaged groups within the SC category. This judgment, passed with a 6-1 majority, marks a significant step toward social equality and justice.
Key Highlights of the Judgment
Majority Decision:
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, overruled the 2005 EV Chinnaiah judgment that prohibited sub-classification within SCs. Justice Bela Trivedi was the sole dissenter.
Sub-classification Parameters:
The ruling clarifies that sub-classification does not violate the principles of equality under Article 14 or the provisions of Article 341 of the Constitution. However, states must justify sub-classification with empirical data showing inadequate representation of the sub-class.
Creamy Layer Exclusion:
Justices BR Gavai, Pankaj Mithal, and Satish Chandra Sharma suggested that the concept of the 'creamy layer' should be applied to SC/ST categories to ensure true equality. This would mean excluding the more affluent members from the benefits of affirmative action.
Background and Implications
The case arose from the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which was challenged based on the precedent set by EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The Supreme Court's latest ruling upholds the power of states to sub-classify reserved categories, allowing for more targeted affirmative action.
Chief Justice Chandrachud’s Perspective
CJI DY Chandrachud emphasized that the historical and social context shows SCs are not a homogenous group. Sub-classification is necessary to address the varied levels of discrimination and backwardness within SCs.
He noted, "Sub-classification does not violate Articles 14 and 341 and is essential for achieving real equality."
Support for More Backward Classes
Justice BR Gavai pointed out that only a few within SC/ST categories benefit from reservations, and more backward communities require preferential treatment. He stressed the need for states to identify and support these groups, backed by quantifiable data.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Bela Trivedi dissented, arguing that sub-classification amounts to altering the Presidential list of SCs, which can only be done by Parliament. She warned that this could lead to a misuse of power and undermine the benefits intended for the SC category as a whole.
Broader Legal and Social Impact
The Supreme Court's decision is expected to influence various state laws and policies concerning reservations. It sets a precedent for equitable affirmative action policies, ensuring that the most disadvantaged groups within the SC category receive the support they need.
Read more: Supreme Court of India Slashes Bar Council Fees, Protecting Young Lawyer's Rights.
Conclusion
This landmark ruling underscores the Supreme Court's commitment to social justice and equality. By allowing sub-classification within SCs, the court aims to ensure that affirmative action benefits reach those who are most in need, fostering a more inclusive and equitable society.
Case Reference
Case Name: State of Punjab And Ors. v Davinder Singh And Ors.
Case Number: C.A. No. 2317/2011
Interested in more reading detailed analysis of Courts verdict, follow our trusted News Blog "In Bulletin".
