• Sign In/Sign Up
  • Menu
  • +Clients Back

    • Get Free Legal Answers
    • Get Fee Estimates
    • Find Lawyers
  • +Lawyers

    • Case Diary & Office Manager
    • Post News & Artilces
    • Post Jobs & Internships
  • +Law Students

    • Campus Ambassadors
    • Find Jobs & Internships
    • Post News & Articles
    • Resource Sharing
  • +Law Schools

    • Post Admissions
    • Post Opportunities
    • Get Law School Rating

  • Home
  • News/Articles
  • Supreme Court Greenlights Sub-Classification of SCs and STs: A New Chapter in Reservation Policy

Latest News

Back

Supreme Court Greenlights Sub-Classification of SCs and STs: A New Chapter in Reservation Policy

Courtesy/By: PARAM SAKET SARANG  |  20 Sep 2024     Views:2233

Supreme Court Greenlights Sub-Classification of SCs and STs: A New Chapter in Reservation Policy

Introduction

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the right of state governments to sub-classify reserved category groups, including Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), for reservation benefits. This 6-1 majority decision, delivered in review of the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling, represents a significant shift in the country’s reservation policies. The judgment overturns the 2004 ruling in E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, which previously held that no distinction could be made within the SC and ST categories.
The Court reasoned that governments can redress gaps within these broad categories and guarantee that affirmative action programs benefit the most vulnerable populations by using the power to subclassify. This ruling recognises that some SC and ST minorities have historically experienced more disadvantage than others and that the general reservations policy frequently fails to meet the needs of the most vulnerable.

The decision, which reinterprets the concepts of equity and affirmative action and opens the door to more discussions on the future of reservations in India, has provoked a wide spectrum of responses. While supporters claim that this action guarantees social justice for all marginalised groups, detractors warn that it may cause division within the reserved categories, therefore eroding the whole notion of reservation.

The key point of the verdict:-


Permitting Sub-Classifications:- The Court ruled that states might subdivide SCs and STs within the current reserve limits by the constitution. States can specifically establish subgroups within the 15% SC reserve to prioritise the most disadvantaged people. A seven-judge bench rendered this verdict, acknowledging that not all populations falling under the SC and ST classifications experience the same hardship.

Difference Between Sub-Classification and Sub-Categorisation:- The Chief Justice of India emphasised the distinction between "sub-classification" and "sub-categorisation." Sub-categorisation refers to grouping individuals without considering these distinctions, whereas sub-classification enables distinctions between the degrees of backwardness within SCs and STs. The Court emphasised that the sincere upliftment of underprivileged groups should be the main objective and warned against utilising categories for political purposes or appeasement.

Empirical Basis for Sub-Classifications: The Court was adamant that subclassifications have to be supported by historical evidence of systematic discrimination as well as empirical data. States must make their judgments not on subjective or politically motivated factors but on a strong basis of science. This stipulation guarantees that subcategorisations are equitable, efficient, and advantageous to the individuals who require the most assistance.

Judicial Oversight: The Court further declared that judicial scrutiny would be applied to state decisions about subclassifications. This clause guarantees that subclassifications be used fairly and guards against any abuse of the system for political ends. The Court underlined that reservations must be utilised correctly to fulfil the needs of the most marginalised groups within SCs and STs and that they are a constitutional tool to overcome past discrimination.

Creamy Layer Exclusion:- Applying the "creamy layer" concept to SCs and STs was a significant accomplishment of the ruling. This principle was exclusively applied to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) until recently when it was established in the seminal Indra Sawhney Case (1992). By excluding the richer and more privileged members of a disadvantaged category from getting reservation benefits, the creamy layer idea ensures that only those who are really in need will benefit. According to the Court's ruling, governments are required to identify and deny reservation benefits to the members of SCs and STs who are deemed to be economically and socially better situated.

One-Generation Benefit for Reservations:- The Court's position restricting reservation advantages to a family's first generation is another significant aspect of the ruling. The Court reasoned that there is no reason for the second generation of a family to continue getting the same advantages if the first generation benefited from reservations and rose in social and economic standing. This makes sure that the goal of the reservation system is still to uplift the most marginalised people in society.

No 100% Reservation for Sub-Classes:- The Supreme Court also made it clear that it is not permitted to reserve 100% of a space for any subclass within an SC or ST. This clause guarantees that subclassifications may exist, but they must not take up all of the reservation quotas, allowing room for other groups that fall under the more general SC and ST categories. The Court reaffirmed the necessity for inclusive and equitable reserve rules that take into account the interests of all marginalised groups residing in these areas.

Juggling Nuance and Reservation Policy:- The Court's ruling illustrates a careful consideration of reservations. It acknowledges that reservation rules cannot be universally applied and must change to take into account the varying degrees of backwardness seen in SCs and STs. To guarantee that benefits from reservations are received by those who genuinely need them, this rule recognises the complexity of the socioeconomic circumstances that these communities must contend with.

Consequences of the Verdict:- The decision will have a significant impact on how states formulate their reservation laws. States can now classify people inside SCs and STs in more detailed ways, but they have to base their decisions on solid facts and evidence. Furthermore, the reservation mechanism has undergone a substantial change with the implementation of the creamy layer idea in SCs and STs, possibly lowering the benefits available to the relatively better-off within these communities.

The issue of sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs) was referred to a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2020). This referral was primarily driven by the need to reconsider the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in EV Chinniah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004), which had declared that sub-classifications within SCs were not permissible.

 

The key factors leading to this referral are outlined below.

1. Reconsideration of the EV Chinniah Judgment:- In the 2004 EV Chinniah case, the Supreme Court ruled that sub-classification within SCs was unconstitutional, as the Court viewed SCs as a homogeneous group. The judgment was based on the interpretation that all Scheduled Castes, as listed in the Presidential Order under Article 341 of the Constitution, were treated equally, and no subgroup within this category could be prioritised over another. According to this view, the SC category as a whole was entitled to reservations, and any sub-division within this group would violate the constitutional mandate.

However, the five-judge bench in the State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2020) case questioned the validity of the EV Chinniah ruling. The bench believed that the Chinniah judgment overlooked the varying levels of backwardness and deprivation within SC communities and that a one-size-fits-all approach might not adequately address the needs of the most disadvantaged groups. This prompted the need for a deeper examination and potential reconsideration of the earlier ruling, leading to the referral to a larger bench.

 

2. Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006:- The legal challenge in Davinder Singh arose from a specific provision in the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. Section 4(5) of this Act mandated that 50% of the vacancies reserved for SCs in direct recruitment should be offered to specific sub-groups within the SC category, namely the Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, provided that candidates from these sub-groups were available.

This provision aimed to ensure that these particularly disadvantaged sub-castes, which were seen as being historically marginalised even within the broader SC category, received a fair share of the benefits of reservation. The Punjab government’s move to allocate a specific percentage of SC reservations to these sub-groups was based on the recognition that not all SC communities experienced the same level of social and economic backwardness.

 

3. High Court Ruling:- The provision in the Punjab law was challenged, and in 2010, a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court struck down Section 4(5) of the Act. The High Court’s ruling was based on the earlier EV Chinniah judgment, which stated that SCs formed a homogeneous group under Article 341 of the Constitution. According to this interpretation, the High Court concluded that no further sub-classification within the SC category was permissible, as this would violate the constitutional principle that all castes listed in the Presidential Order under Article 341(1) were to be treated equally.

The High Court’s decision reaffirmed the Chinniah ruling, which had held that the power to identify and classify Scheduled Castes belonged solely to the President of India. According to Article 341, the President has the authority, in consultation with the Governor of the respective state, to identify which communities fall under the category of SCs. This Presidential Order, once notified, would be final and could not be altered or sub-classified by states or any other authority.

 

4. Article 341 of the Constitution:- The foundation of the EV Chinniah judgment and the High Court’s ruling in Davinder Singh was Article 341 of the Constitution, which governs the identification of Scheduled Castes. According to Article 341(1), the President of India, in consultation with the Governor of a state, has the exclusive power to identify and notify SCs through public notification. Once this identification is made, no further sub-classification or division of these castes is permitted unless it is done through an act of Parliament.

In the EV Chinniah ruling, the Court had interpreted this Article to mean that all SC communities, once notified by the President, formed a homogeneous group and were to be treated equally for reservation. This interpretation effectively prohibited any attempts by states to create sub-classifications or prioritise certain sub-groups within the SC category.

 

5. Need for Re-Examination:- The Davinder Singh case brought to the forefront the growing recognition that SC communities are not a monolithic group. Different sub-castes within the SC category experience varying levels of social and economic deprivation. Some groups remain severely marginalised, while others have benefitted more significantly from reservation policies. The five-judge bench in Davinder Singh recognised that the earlier Chinniah judgment may have failed to account for this reality, and it became necessary to re-examine the constitutionality of sub-classifications to ensure that the most disadvantaged groups within SCs receive adequate support.

Thus, the referral of the sub-classification issue to a seven-judge bench was driven by the need to reconsider the EV Chinniah judgment in light of changing social and legal perspectives on the reservation system. The larger bench was tasked with examining whether sub-classification within SCs is constitutionally permissible and, if so, under what conditions it can be implemented to ensure that the most marginalised groups within the SC category benefit from affirmative action policies.

The Supreme Court aimed to provide a more nuanced understanding of the complexities involved in implementing reservation policies for SCs and ensure that affirmative action benefits reach those who need it the most.

Going ahead, the sub-classification of SCs and STs has to take historical prejudice, economic inequality, and larger societal concerns into serious account. States must steer clear of political agendas and concentrate on making sure the process is fair. Decision-making will be aided by the full data on SCs and STs that will be gathered from the next Census, including precise sub-group data. To preserve openness and trust, independent methods for verifying data must be established. Clear and objective standards should be established when creating sub-classification criteria to prevent judgments from being affected by politics or subjectivity. Prioritising socio-economic variables above caste or tribal ties is necessary to guarantee equitable distribution of resources. Furthermore, it is critical to acknowledge that subclassification is a stopgap solution meant to rectify past wrongs, with the ultimate objective being the comprehensive socioeconomic advancement and empowerment of SCs and STs. Reliance on reserves should be gradually decreased as general social and economic conditions improve, leading to a more egalitarian society.

 

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court's ruling allowing the subclassification of SCs and STs is a significant turning point in India's reservation policy since it guarantees that the most marginalised members of these groups are the focus of affirmative action. It makes room for more complex and fair policies, but it also means that nations must behave honourably and prioritise socioeconomic advancement over political expediency. To make sure that benefits reach those who need them the most, the judgment highlights the necessity of objective standards, independent data verification, and ongoing monitoring. Sub-classification needs to be viewed as a stopgap tactic, with the ultimate objective being the promotion of general socioeconomic advancement and the progressive reduction of reservation dependency as inequalities close.

References

  • Indian Express:- https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/explained-sub-classification-of-sc-st-9489996/
  • The Economic Times:- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/sc-holds-sub-classification-within-reserved-classes-sc/sts-permissible/articleshow/112185382.cms
  • The Hindu:- https://www.thehindu.com/data/call-for-sub-classification-data-shows-uneven-development-within-scs-and-sts/article68523300.ece
  • Supreme Court Observer:- https://www.scobserver.in/journal/sub-classification-within-reserved-categories-judgement-explainer/

Courtesy/By: PARAM SAKET SARANG  |  20 Sep 2024     Views:2233

News Updates

Article
The Legal Framework of Bail Conditions in India: B...
25 Oct 2024     Views:2559
Article
Changing an Arbitrator Mid-Proceeding: Legal Frame...
23 Oct 2024     Views:2068
Article
IMF Retains India's FY25 GDP Growth Forecast at 7%...
22 Oct 2024     Views:2097
Article
The Evolving Landscape of Russian Anti-Suit Injunc...
22 Oct 2024     Views:1932
Article
Hyundai’s IPO vs Competitors: How the Auto Giant...
15 Oct 2024     Views:2081
Article
The Validity of Arbitration Agreements Post Decree...
14 Oct 2024     Views:1779
Article
SEBI Issues Checklist for AIFs, Their Managers, an...
08 Oct 2024     Views:1912
Article
The Siemens v. Russian Railroads Case...
07 Oct 2024     Views:1917
Article
Empowering Minds in Confinement: Bombay HC’s Lan...
03 Oct 2024     Views:2054
Article
The Dynamics of Novation in Contract Law and Its I...
02 Oct 2024     Views:2183
Article
SEBI Establishes Consistent Evaluation Standards f...
01 Oct 2024     Views:1925
Article
Landmark Decision by Austrian Supreme Court on Arb...
30 Sep 2024     Views:1922
Article
Key Considerations for Indian Commercial Claims...
25 Sep 2024     Views:1884
Article
Boom or Bust: Africa’s Oil Giants Face Declining...
23 Sep 2024     Views:1984
Article
The Growing Role of Arbitration in Intellectual Pr...
23 Sep 2024     Views:1951
Article
Supreme Court Greenlights Sub-Classification of SC...
20 Sep 2024     Views:2233
Article
SEBI's Employee Grievances Prompt Formation of Wor...
19 Sep 2024     Views:2085
Article
Environmental Law in India: Challenges and Opportu...
18 Sep 2024     Views:2828
Article
Navigating the New Legal Landscape of Exclusive Ju...
16 Sep 2024     Views:2073
Article
The Anatomy of Joint Venture Breakups in India (an...
31 Jul 2024     Views:2400
Article
The Integration of ESG in India's M&A Landscape...
31 Jul 2024     Views:2298
Article
Future of AI in Legal Systems and Conflict Resolut...
21 Jul 2024     Views:2526
Article
World Health Assembly Revises International Health...
21 Jul 2024     Views:2380
Article
Pokemon GO Fans Concerned Over Restrictive New Ter...
21 Jul 2024     Views:2486
Article
Landmark Judgment on Setting Aside Arbitration Awa...
21 Jul 2024     Views:2262
Article
Understanding the Process of Issuing Summons in In...
11 Jul 2023     Views:5497
Article
Understanding the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)...
10 Jul 2023     Views:4191
Article
Understanding the Mental Health Act in India: A St...
09 Jul 2023     Views:4231
Article
Combating Manual Scavenging in India: A Call for S...
07 Jul 2023     Views:4075
Article
Impleadment in Supreme Court of India: A Comprehen...
05 Jul 2023     Views:4931
Article
Unraveling the Distinction: Culpable Homicide vs. ...
03 Jul 2023     Views:4340
Article
Understanding the Difference between Money Bills a...
02 Jul 2023     Views:2901
Article
Understanding the Civil Procedure Code in India: A...
01 Jul 2023     Views:3621
Article
The Rights of Criminals in India: Upholding Justic...
30 Jun 2023     Views:2918
Article
Exploring the Differences between the US and India...
29 Jun 2023     Views:2939
Article
What to Do If the Police Refuse to Register Your F...
26 Jun 2023     Views:3175
Article
Timeline of Environmental Protocols: A Global Effo...
25 Jun 2023     Views:2875
Article
How to Deal with Cheque Bounce Cases in India...
24 Jun 2023     Views:2864
Article
Pursuing a Lucrative Litigation Career in Indian L...
22 Jun 2023     Views:2891
Article
Understanding the Emergency Provisions of India: S...
21 Jun 2023     Views:2907
Article
Environment Legislation in India: A Comprehensive ...
20 Jun 2023     Views:3235
Article
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
18 Jun 2023     Views:2767
Article
Understanding the Emergency Powers of the Constitu...
17 Jun 2023     Views:2770
Article
Timeline of Same-Sex Laws in India: A Journey Towa...
16 Jun 2023     Views:3188
Article
Sir Creek Dispute and Legal Implications...
15 Jun 2023     Views:3377
Article
Jurisprudence of NDPS Laws in India: A Comprehensi...
14 Jun 2023     Views:2978
Article
Impleadment Proceedings: A Comprehensive Guide to ...
13 Jun 2023     Views:3420
Article
Understanding Continuing Mandamus: A Powerful Judi...
12 Jun 2023     Views:5199
Article
Res Judicata: The Doctrine of Finality in Legal Pr...
10 Jun 2023     Views:3427
Article
Mastering the Art of Legal Drafting: A Comprehensi...
08 Jun 2023     Views:3119
Article
Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CP...
07 Jun 2023     Views:8614
Article
Understanding the Laws of War: Protecting Humanity...
03 Jun 2023     Views:2854
Article
Understanding the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC...
02 Jun 2023     Views:3614
Article
The National Drug and Psychotropic Substances (NDP...
01 Jun 2023     Views:3228
Article
A Step-by-Step Guide: How to File an FIR in India...
31 May 2023     Views:2936
Article
Zero FIR: An Effective Tool for Prompt Criminal Ju...
30 May 2023     Views:3187
Article
Unveiling the Dissent of Judges in Judicial Judgme...
28 May 2023     Views:2842
Article
Environmental Laws in India: Safeguarding Nature f...
25 May 2023     Views:3279
Article
The Recusal of Supreme Court of India Judges from ...
24 May 2023     Views:2953
Article
Understanding the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Cour...
23 May 2023     Views:3448
Article
Article 142 of the Constitution of India: A Compre...
22 May 2023     Views:3587
Article
Landmark Judgments in Arbitration Law in India: A...
21 May 2023     Views:3839
Article
Landmark Cases on Anticipatory Bail in India: A Pa...
20 May 2023     Views:7687
Article
Embracing the Future: How AI is Revolutionizing th...
18 May 2023     Views:3096
Article
Understanding Narcotics Laws in India: A Comprehen...
17 May 2023     Views:2910
Article
Understanding Indian Laws on Cross-Border Transact...
16 May 2023     Views:3983
Article
ADR mechanism of legal adjudication in India...
15 May 2023     Views:2796
Article
Validity of foreign arbitral award in India throug...
14 May 2023     Views:2827
Article
Scope of Section 151 CPC...
13 May 2023     Views:4364
Article
Detailed Overview on Section 482 of Crpc...
11 May 2023     Views:3352
Article
Scope of Decree under CPC...
10 May 2023     Views:2944
Article
Legal development of Arbitration Laws in India....
09 May 2023     Views:2966
Article
Arbitration Laws in India...
07 May 2023     Views:2916
Article
Impact of COVID-19 on Legal Industry...
06 May 2023     Views:5028
Article
Chargesheet not having authority's valid sanction ...
02 May 2023     Views:3189
Article
Same-Sex Marriage in India...
30 Apr 2023     Views:2847
Article
National Commission for Women...
27 Apr 2023     Views:2697
Article
Law making process of India....
26 Apr 2023     Views:3761
Article
Bail Provisions in India...
25 Apr 2023     Views:2735
Article
Life imprisonment in Criminal Law in India...
24 Apr 2023     Views:3123
Article
Contempt of Court...
23 Apr 2023     Views:2982
Article
The collegium system of Judiciary in India....
22 Apr 2023     Views:2674
Article
Remarriage before Expiry of Limitation Period to f...
21 Apr 2023     Views:2712
Article
Need for strict measure of NDPS laws in India....
20 Apr 2023     Views:2841
Article
Nature of Offence under Section 138 of NI Act is Q...
19 Apr 2023     Views:5221
Article
Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Plaint cannot be rejected m...
18 Apr 2023     Views:3854
Article
Mediation: At the Dawn of Golden Age organized at ...
16 Apr 2023     Views:3012
Article
Central Government's motto should be mediate, not ...
15 Apr 2023     Views:2717
Article
Ambedkar Jayanti Celebrations...
14 Apr 2023     Views:2921
Article
Supreme Court of India calls for Preventive Measur...
12 Apr 2023     Views:2534
Article
Pursuing LL.M is not break in Law Practice, Rules ...
11 Apr 2023     Views:2716
Article
Law should take into consideration realities of co...
10 Apr 2023     Views:2591
Article
Delhi High Court said that peeping into public bat...
08 Apr 2023     Views:3138
Article
Delhi High Court denies bails to AAP's Satyendra J...
06 Apr 2023     Views:3298
Article
Supreme Court’s Triple Talaq Judgement Would App...
30 Jan 2023     Views:3027
Article
Article 311(1) | An Order of Removal From Service ...
26 Jan 2023     Views:3527
Article
Leaders shouldn't disrespect the President or Pri...
17 Jan 2023     Views:2840
Article
New bench will hear Ashwini Upadhyay's Supreme Cou...
15 Jan 2023     Views:2969
Article
Person Who Drove Rashly with the Knowledge that it...
12 Jan 2023     Views:3543
Article
The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot b...
11 Jan 2023     Views:3308
FIND A LAWYER




FIND A LAW SCHOOL



Most Read News Articles

  • Sabrimala Verdict (28 sept 2018) - A End of Taboo.
    On 07 Oct 2020    Views:93298
  • Case Analysis: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India
    On 11 Dec 2020    Views:70672
  • Case Analysis: THE BERUBARI UNION CASE
    On 14 Dec 2020    Views:68186
  • DOCTRINE OF ELECTION UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882
    On 08 Jul 2020    Views:67385
  • A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950 AIR 27, 1950 SCR 88)
    On 08 Nov 2020    Views:56643
View all >>

Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified

86540

Lawyers Network

103860

Users

630

Cities Serving

114

Law Schools Network

59824

Law Students Network

About us

  • Company Profile

Indian Major Laws

  • Indian Constitution
  • IPC
  • CrPC
  • CPC
  • Companies Act
  • Indian Evidence Act
  • CGST Act
  • Limitation Act

Policies

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refund & Cancellation

    Ads & Media

  • Resource Sharing
  • Advertiser(Sign Up/Login)
  • Media

    Careers

  • Internships
  • Jobs
  • Student Journalists

    HELP & SUPPORT

  • Contact Us
  • Grievances
  • Test

News

  • Legal News
  • Post Article
  • Post Interview

Legal Library

  • Central Acts
  • Deeds Drafts [1128 ]
  • Legal Maxims

Connect

Lawsisto Direct

 

  •  
  •  
DISCLAIMER
Copyright © Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may
be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.