States can make sub-classifications in Scheduled Castes quota: SC

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that state governments can make sub-classifications in the quotas for Scheduled Castes (SCs) to uplift the more underprivileged castes within these communities.

A seven-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, said the SCs formed a socially heterogeneous class. But it also cautioned the States that the basis of sub-classification has to be justified by “quantifiable and demonstrable data by the States, which cannot act on its whims”.

Only one judge on the bench, Justice Bela Trivedi, dissented.

The bench, also comprising justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Mishra, was hearing 23 petitions, including the lead one filed by the Punjab government challenging a 2010 verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

 

The bench delivered six separate judgements.

The CJI wrote for himself and Justice Misra. Four judges wrote concurring judgments while Justice Trivedi dissented. In her dissenting verdict, Justice Trivedi said states cannot tinker with the Scheduled Caste list notified under Article 341 of the Constitution.

The verdict came on references to revisit the five-judge Constitution bench judgement of 2004 in the case of EV Chinnaiah versus State of Andhra Pradesh. It had ruled that the SCs are homogenous groups and hence, States cannot further sub-classify them to grant quota inside quota for more deprived and weaker castes in these groups.

Justice Gavai, in a separate verdict, said that States must identify the creamy layer in SCs and take them out of reservation. Justice Vikram Nath said he agreed with Justice Gavai, and that the "criteria for exclusion of creamy layer for the purpose of affirmative action could be different from the criteria as applicable to the Other Backward Classes".

Justice Pankaj Mithal said that reservation policy requires a fresh relook and new methods are needed for the uplift of people belonging to SCs, STs and OBCs.

Chief Justice Chandrachud said SCs are not an integrated or homogenous group.

States can identify the differing degrees of discrimination or backwardness and focus on greater benefits to sub-classes of SCs. This would not violate the President’s exclusive authority under Article 341 to identify SCs.

The SC verdict evoked a mixed response.

Most of the southern states, which have strived to create such sub-classifications within the SC quota, hailed the judgement, as did the Left parties. The Janata Dal (United) and Telugu Desam Party (TDP), two crucial constituents of the National Democratic Alliance government at the Centre, welcomed the verdict.

However, political leaders and parties in the rest of northern India, especially in Uttar Pradesh, were much more circumspect in their views on the judgement. The Bahujan Samaj Party had not reacted to the verdict till Thursday evening.

In Andhra Pradesh, the Madiga Reservation Porata Samithi (MRPS) founder-president Manda Krishna Madiga welcomed the judgement which met its nearly three-decade long demand. The Madiga community is one of the biggest constituents of SCs in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. During the campaign for the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, Prime Minister Narendra Modi attended a meeting organised by MRPS and assured the SC community that the Centre would form a committee to adopt all possible ways to empower the Madigas with regard to their demand of categorisation of SCs.

Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu welcomed the verdict and reminded that the TDP government had constituted the Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission in 1996 on SC sub-categorisation. Based on its recommendations, the state government implemented sub-quotas in 2000.

However, a five judge SC bench had struck down the Andhra Pradesh law in 2004. Subsequently, the Centre constituted the Justice Usha Mehra Commission to examine the issue of sub-categorisation of SCs in Andhra Pradesh. It recognised that the Malas in Andhra Pradesh had disproportionate representation in government employment compared with Madiga and Relli castes.

Similar efforts towards sub-categorisation took place in Punjab and Tamil Nadu. In Tamil Nadu, the M Karunanidhi government in 2009 set apart a three per cent sub-quota for the Arunthathiyar community within the SC quota. It was based on the data collected by a government committee.

Tamil Nadu CM M K Stalin said the SC’s order is recognition of his party’s Dravidian model.

Telangana CM A Revanth Reddy said his state would be the first to implement the sub-classification.

Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah termed the SC’s ruling as “historic” and promised to study the recommendations of the Justice AJ Sadashiva Committee on internal reservations.

However, Lok Sabha MP Chandrashekhar Azad from UP asked whether the judgement violated Article 341.

What the Apex Court said

> Historical and empirical evidence demonstrates that Scheduled Castes (SCs) are socially heterogeneous class

> States required to collect "quantifiable data with respect to inadequacy of representation of the sub-categories in the services"

> Any decision to sub-classify SCs to grant more quota benefits to a particular caste inside the category can be reviewed judicially

> In its 6:1 verdict, the apex court Bench overturned a 5-judge Bench 2004 order to say SCs are a socially heterogeneous class

> Verdict says sub-quotas should have empirical basis, a state cannot act on its whims

> In a separate order, Justice BR Gavai asks states to identify creamy layer in SCs