Sub-classification of SC-ST permissible to give separate quota for more backwards, says SC overruling 2004 verdict

The Supreme Court on Thursday overruled a 2004 decision by a five-judge bench in EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, which stated that sub-classification was impermissible on the grounds that Shecduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes constitute homogenous classes.

A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court has ruled by majority that sub-classification within the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (SC/STs) is permissible to grant separate quotas for more backwards, according to legal news website, LiveLaw.

The top court clarified that while allowing sub-classification, the state cannot earmark 100 per cent reservation for a sub-class. Also, the state has to justify the sub-classification based on empirical data regarding the inadequacy of representation of the sub-class.

The SC Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma had reserved the judgment on February 8 this year after hearing the matter for three days.

CJI Chandrachud said that there are six judgments, all concurring in the case. "The majority has overruled the EV Chinniah judgment of 2004 which held that sub-classification is not permissible, he said. Justice Bela Trivedi, however, dissented.

The 7-judge Constitution bench was considering two aspects. 1) Whether sub-classification with the reserved castes be allowed, and 2) The correctness of the decision in EV Chinnaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that SCs notified under Article 341 formed one homogenous group and could not be sub-categorized further.

The Court was reviewing the constitutional validity of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Act, which depends on whether sub-classifications can be made within the Scheduled Castes or Tribes or if they should be treated as homogenous groups.

The state of Punjab was represented by Advocate General Gurminder Singh, along with Additional Advocate General Shadan Farasat. Several senior advocates including Kapil Sibal, Gopal Sanakaranarayanan, former Attorney General Venugopal, Siddharth Luthra, Salman Khurshid , Murlidhar also made their submissions from the petitioners' side, LiveLaw said.

The Union government had submitted that it was in favour of the sub-classifications among SCs and STs. Attorney General for India R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared on behalf of the Union, supporting the cause of subclassification in reservations.

In his judgement, CJI Chandrachud referred to historical evidence suggesting that SC is not a homogeneous class. “Sub-classification does not violate the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Also, sub-classification does not violate Article 341(2) of the Constitution. There is nothing in Articles 15 and 16 which prevents the State from sub-classifying a Caste,” he said, according to LiveLaw.