In a landmark decision with far-reaching implications, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a historic 6-1 majority ruling on the issue of sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes (SCs) on August 1, 2024. The seven-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, declared that SCs do not constitute a socially homogeneous class and can be sub-classified by states to better target reservations for the less privileged among them. This ruling overturned the previous 2004 judgment in E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (2004), which had deemed SCs as a uniform group incapable of further subdivision. The court emphasised that any sub-classification must be grounded in rational principles and data demonstrating differential levels of social backwardness. Additionally, the majority opinion suggested that excluding the “creamy layer” from SCs and Scheduled Tribes (STs) could enhance the effectiveness of affirmative action. Justice Bela M. Trivedi, the sole dissenter, maintained that SCs constitute a homogeneous class and opposed any attempts to alter this categorisation. This pivotal ruling sets a new precedent in the application of reservation policies, raising significant questions about the future of affirmative action in India.
What Led to the Reference of the Issue
In 1975, under Chief Minister Giani Zail Singh, the Punjab government issued a circular mandating that 50 per cent of jobs within the 25 per cent quota reserved for SCs be allocated specifically to members of the Valmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities. This measure aimed to address perceived disparities and ensure that these historically marginalised groups receive a fair share of reservation benefits.
The reservation system established by this circular continued until July 2006, when the Punjab and Haryana High Court struck it down in the case of Dr Kishan Pal and Others v. State of Punjab and Others (2006). The court’s decision was influenced by the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2004), which had invalidated the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 for violating the right to equality by introducing an expansive list of SC communities with specific quotas.
E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors (2004)
In the E.V. Chinnaiah case, a five-judge Supreme Court Bench of Justices N. Santosh Hegde, S.N. Variava, B.P. Singh, H.K. Sema, and S.B. Sinha ruled that all castes listed in the Presidential Order under Article 341(1) of the Constitution form a single homogeneous group. The Supreme Court invalidated the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000. The act’s extensive list of SC communities and their specific quotas were deemed problematic, as the court determined that further sub-classification within SCs was impermissible. Article 341(1) allows the President of India, in consultation with the governor, to designate certain castes as SCs, and any attempt to subdivide these designated SCs further would breach Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
In response to the demands and complaints of Valmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities, the Punjab government, led by Chief Minister Amarinder Singh, introduced the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 in September 2006 and received governor assent on October 5, 2006. This act aimed to protect and institutionalise the reservation benefits for Valmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities within Punjab’s reservation policies.
However, in 2010, the Punjab and Haryana High Court invalidated Punjab’s reservation policy again, following the Supreme Court’s stance that sub-classification within SCs was impermissible as per the E.V. Chinnaiah judgment. In 2014, the Punjab government appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision. They contended that the Supreme Court’s 2004 ruling, which had deemed sub-classification of SCs impermissible, was incorrect.
The matter was revisited in 2020 in the case of the State of Punjab & Ors. vs Davinder Singh Ors. A five-judge bench reconsidered the E.V. Chinnaiah decision, finding that it had misapplied the precedent set in Indira Sawhney vs Union of India (1992) case. The bench examined the validity of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, potentially impacting the future of reservation policies in Punjab.
SC on Sub-Classification of SCs for Quota (2024)
A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma in a 6-1 majority held that sub-classification of SCs is permissible. The Supreme Court has determined that Article 341 does not establish “integrated homogeneous classes” and that sub-classification within SCs for purposes like affirmative action and reservations does not alter the inclusion or exclusion of castes from the list. Such changes can only be made by Parliament. Consequently, Article 341 does not create a static class that cannot be further subdivided. The court also noted that historical and empirical evidence indicates that SCs are heterogeneous, and the Indra Sawhney ruling does not restrict sub-classification to backward classes alone.
This means that states can identify more backward groups within the SC categories and allocate separate quotas for them. The judgment overrules the previous 2004 decision in E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, which had prohibited such sub-classification. The order also highlights the necessity to exclude the affluent members of SCs from reservation benefits on the creamy-layer criteria. At present, the creamy-layer criteria are only applicable in the OBC reservations.
The court emphasised that while sub-classification is allowed, states must adhere to certain conditions:
Empirical justification States must provide quantifiable data to justify the need for sub-classification. This data should demonstrate that the sub-class is inadequately represented or faces additional challenges compared to other SC groups.
Quota limitation States cannot earmark 100 per cent of the reservation for a sub-class. The overall quota for SCs should remain within the reserved limits prescribed by law.
Judgment and Judicial Opinions
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud CJI Chandrachud, writing for himself and Justice Misra, stated that sub-classification does not violate Articles 14 (Right to Equality) or 341 (Scheduled Castes) of the Constitution. He referred to historical evidence which suggested that scheduled castes are not a homogeneous class. There is no provision in Articles 15 and 16 that prohibits the state from implementing sub-classifications within a caste group.
Sub-classification must be grounded in quantifiable and demonstrable data that shows certain groups within the SCs are inadequately represented. States cannot implement sub-classifications based on arbitrary decisions or political motivations. Instead, any such decision is subject to judicial review to ensure it is justified and aligns with constitutional principles.
Justice B.R. Gavai Justice B.R. Gavai, in his concurring judgment, emphasised the state’s responsibility to provide additional preferential treatment to more backward communities within the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). He noted that only a small subset of individuals within these categories benefits from reservations, while some groups have experienced significantly more historical oppression.
Critique of E.V. Chinnaiah Judgment Justice Gavai identified a fundamental error in the E.V. Chinnaiah judgment, which had ruled that sub-classification of SCs was impermissible. He argued that this decision incorrectly relied on the notion that Article 341 of the Constitution was the basis for reservations. According to Justice Gavai, Article 341 primarily deals with identifying castes for the purpose of reservation but does not preclude the need for sub-classification within those castes.
Basis for sub-classification Justice Gavai supported the notion that sub-classification is warranted when certain groups within a larger category face greater discrimination. This approach recognises that within the broader SC/ST categories, some groups are more disadvantaged and therefore require more targeted affirmative action.
Creamy layer principle Justice Gavai also advocated for applying the creamy layer principle to SCs and STs, similar to its application for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) but with different parameters. He proposed that states should develop policies to identify and exclude the more privileged individuals within these categories from affirmative action benefits. This would help ensure that resources are directed toward those who are most in need, thereby promoting true equality.
The creamy layer is not the same as sub-classification or sub-categorisation. The sub-classification or sub-categorisation refers to the community or caste-wise classification of a reserved category, such as SC, based on various socio-economic conditions or other criteria. On the other hand, the creamy layer refers to a group within a specific caste or community who are deemed superior to others based on certain criteria
The concept of a ‘creamy layer’ emerged from the 1992 Indra Sawhney case. The V.P. Singh government, following the Mandal Commission’s recommendation, notified 27 per cent OBC reservation in civil posts and services on August 13, 1990. However, this decision was challenged in the Supreme Court by Indra Sawhney and others. On November 16, 1992, a nine-judge bench, led by Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, upheld the 27 per cent OBC reservation, subject to exclusion of the creamy layer, or the more socially, economically, and educationally advanced members among OBCs. The purpose was to ensure that reservation benefits are allocated to those who require them most.
The creamy layer comprises two broader categories (besides persons holding constitutional post)—(i) people whose parents are in government service and (ii) those whose parents works in the private sector. In case of the first one, the creamy layer determination is based on rank, while for the second one, the determination is based on their parents’ income (current threshold is 8 lakhs since 2017).
Justice Vikram Nath concurred with Justice Gavai on applying the creamy layer principle to SCs.
Justice Pankaj Mithal supported the idea that reservations should be limited to one generation, suggesting that once a generation benefits from reservations and achieves a higher status, subsequent generations should not continue to receive these benefits.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma also supported the views expressed by Justice Gavai and the application of the creamy layer principle.
Justice Bela Trivedi In her dissenting opinion, Justice Bela Trivedi argued that the Presidential list of Scheduled Castes (SCs), as notified under Article 341 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be altered by states. She contended that changes to the list, including sub-classification of SCs, can only be made through legislation enacted by Parliament. Justice Trivedi viewed sub-classification as an unauthorised alteration of the Presidential list, which was intended to prevent political manipulation in the designation of SCs and STs.
Justice Trivedi emphasised the need for a plain and literal interpretation of Article 341. She argued that any preferential treatment for specific sub-classes within the Presidential List could result in other SCs within the same category being deprived of benefits. According to her, states lack the executive or legislative authority to create such sub-classifications and allocate benefits, as doing so would amount to an abuse of power.
Need for Sub-Classification
Addressing internal disparities Within the SC, there is substantial variation in social and economic conditions among different communities. Certain sub-groups within these categories face more severe disadvantages than others. For example, some SCs may experience higher levels of educational and economic deprivation compared to others. Subclassification seeks to identify these internal disparities and target specific needs, ensuring that policies address the unique challenges faced by different sub-groups within the larger SC categories.
Improving targeted support Sub-classification allows policymakers to design and implement targeted interventions that address the specific needs of distinct SC sub-groups. This targeted approach enhances the effectiveness of affirmative action programmes by ensuring that support and resources are allocated where they are most needed. For instance, if a particular SC community has a higher rate of poverty or educational disadvantage, targeted policies can be developed to address these issues more effectively.
Responding to evolving needs The socio-economic conditions and needs of SC communities are not static, they evolve over time. Sub-classification provides a flexible framework to respond to these changing conditions. By creating subcategories, policymakers can adapt reservation policies to remain relevant and effective in addressing contemporary issues, such as new forms of discrimination or emerging socio-economic challenges.
Enhancing representation Sub-classification can address grievances related to perceived imbalances in representation among SC communities. For example, if one SC group feels that its interests are being overshadowed by another, sub-classification provides a mechanism to ensure fairer representation and address such concerns. This approach helps to balance the representation of different sub-groups and ensures that their specific needs and grievances are acknowledged.
Legal and policy adjustments The sub-classification process is influenced by judicial rulings, legislative changes, and political considerations. For example, the interpretation of previous judgments, such as Indira Sawhney, may impact the approach to sub-classification. Sub-classification allows for alignment with evolving legal and policy requirements, ensuring that reservation policies reflect current interpretations and legislative developments.
Addressing regional variations Different states may experience varying levels of socio-economic development among SC communities. Sub-classification enables a more nuanced approach to policy implementation by tailoring interventions to regional variations. This ensures that policies are responsive to the specific needs and challenges faced by SC communities in different parts of the country.
Encouraging inclusive development The goal of sub-classification is to promote inclusive development by ensuring that all segments within the SC categories benefit from affirmative action policies. By recognising and addressing the needs of smaller or less advantaged sub-groups, sub-classification aims to prevent the marginalisation of these groups and ensure that the benefits of reservation policies are distributed more equitably.
Misinterpretation of the Indira Sawhney ruling The Indira Sawhney ruling primarily focused on the ‘creamy layer’ principle within Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and did not explicitly address sub-classification for SCs or STs. The E.V. Chinnaiah judgment, which rejected Andhra Pradesh’s argument for sub-classification based on this ruling, has been criticised for misinterpreting Indira Sawhney judicial observations. The petitioners argued that Indira Sawhney did not exclude sub-classification for SCs and STs and that the judgment’s focus was more on the creamy layer concept.
Need for diverse and efficient governance Sub-classification is viewed as crucial for achieving more effective governance. It allows for diverse and representative participation in policymaking and administration by addressing the specific needs and experiences of different SC sub-groups. This approach is expected to lead to more targeted and efficient governance, accommodating the varied requirements of distinct subgroups.
Heterogeneity within SCs The significant diversity and varying levels of discrimination among different SC groups highlight the need for sub-classification. Occupational and social differences have led to the formation of distinct sub-classes within the SC category. Recognising these differences in reservation policies helps ensure that the specific needs of each subclass are addressed.
Article 341 and reasonable classification Article 341 empowers the president to designate certain communities as SCs, but sub-classification is within the legislative competence of states, provided it meets reasonable criteria. The petitioners criticised the E.V. Chinnaiah ruling for not applying the twin test of reasonable classification and for overlooking empirical data supporting sub-classification, such as the Investigative Report of Justice Ramchandra Raju. Advocates for sub-classification, including legal experts, argue that a more nuanced approach is needed to meet the diverse needs of SC subgroups.
Significance of the Judgment
Targeted assistance Sub-classification allows for more precise targeting of affirmative action measures. Within the SC categories, there exist varying degrees of socio-economic and educational disadvantage. By identifying and addressing the needs of specific sub-groups, policies can be tailored to provide more effective support where it is needed most.
Equitable distribution Sub-classification helps in addressing the disparities between different groups within SCs. This ensures that communities that are more disadvantaged receive appropriate levels of support, thus promoting greater equity within the broader SC categories.
Improved representation Sub-classification can lead to more accurate representation in educational institutions and government jobs. By creating specific quotas for sub-groups, it ensures that historically marginalised communities within the SC categories receive adequate opportunities.
Increased access The focus on sub-groups allows for a more nuanced approach to reservations, potentially improving access to benefits for communities that might otherwise be overshadowed within the larger SC category. This helps to ensure that the benefits of affirmative action reach those who are most in need.
Addressing differences The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasises the importance of substantive equality, which seeks to address the actual differences in socio-economic conditions among various SC sub-groups. This approach moves beyond formal equality, which treats everyone the same regardless of their differing circumstances, and focuses on achieving true fairness.
Tailored policies By allowing sub-classification, policies can be designed to address specific needs and conditions of different SC sub-groups. This tailored approach helps in achieving a more equitable distribution of benefits and opportunities.
Regional adaptation Different states may have varying socio-economic conditions among SCs. Sub-classification allows states to adapt reservation policies to local needs, ensuring that interventions are relevant and effective in addressing regional disparities.
Some of the prominent SC communities across India that would be impacted by a judgment include the Mahar, known for their socio-political activism and high literacy and Matang in Maharashtra. In Rajasthan, the Meghwal are the largest SC group, with significant populations in Bikaner, Jaisalmer, Barmer, and Jodhpur, while the Bairwa and Jatav are prominent in eastern districts. Among the 93 SC communities present in the state, Odisha’s leading SC groups are the Pan and Dom Chhattisgarh’s largest SC group, including Bairwa and Raidas, makes up over 70 per cent of the Dalit population. Madhya Pradesh features the Balai community, historically leather workers, who form about 12 per cent of the SC population. West Bengal’s major SC groups include the Rajbanshi, Matua, and Bagdi. Gujarat’s SC population is dominated by the Vankar, traditional weavers, and Rohit communities. In Tripura, the Das, Badyakar, Shabdakar, and Sarkar communities collectively represent almost 18 per cent of the population, while Uttarakhand’s largest SC groups are the Harijan and Balmiki, both following Hindu practices.
Localised solutions States can implement reservation policies that reflect the unique challenges faced by communities within their jurisdiction. This localised approach helps in addressing specific issues and improving the overall impact of affirmative action measures.
Focused development Sub-classification promotes inclusive development by ensuring that all segments within the SC categories benefit from the affirmative action. This helps in preventing the marginalisation of smaller or less advantaged sub-groups and ensures broader participation in development opportunities.
Balanced progress By recognising and addressing the needs of different sub-groups, sub-classification contributes to balanced progress across various communities. This approach helps in achieving a more equitable distribution of development benefits and resources.
Judicial oversight The Supreme Court’s ruling imposes constraints on sub-classification, requiring states to provide “quantifiable and demonstrable data” to justify their decisions. This ensures that sub-classification is based on objective criteria rather than political considerations.
Policy development The ruling encourages states to develop clear policies for sub-classification, including mechanisms to exclude the “creamy layer” from reservation benefits. This promotes transparency and accountability in the implementation of reservation policies.
Risks and Legal Implications
Purpose of Article 341 Article 341 is designed to address the common discrimination and backwardness faced by Scheduled Castes (SCs). It aims to recognise the diverse social and educational statuses within SCs while maintaining a unified classification. This unified designation is intended to ensure that all SCs benefit collectively from protections and affirmative actions.
Homogeneity vs Heterogeneity
Homogeneity Article 341(1) suggests that a unified classification as SCs promotes a collective approach to addressing disadvantages. This unified status ensures that all SCs receive consistent benefits and protections.
Heterogeneity Introducing subclasses within SCs can disrupt this unity. Sub-classification might lead to fragmented implementation of policies, undermining the cohesive approach intended by Article 341 and potentially diluting the benefits provided to SCs as a group.
Jurisdiction of Sub-Classification
Parliamentary authority sub-classification falls under the jurisdiction of Parliament, not individual states. Article 341(2) restricts states from altering the SC list, giving the President of India the exclusive authority to make changes. States can raise concerns or propose changes through legislative processes, but cannot unilaterally implement sub-classification.
State constraints States are limited to addressing new identifications or issues through legislative means rather than direct sub-classification. This ensures a consistent and centralised management of SC classifications.
Ineffective implementation Sub-classification may lead to ineffective implementation of reservations. By creating subclasses, the benefits intended for the broader SC category could become diluted, resulting in unequal or reduced support for various subgroups.
Dilution of benefits Fragmenting the SC category into subclasses risks diluting the overall support and benefits. The intended support for the SC category as a whole may be compromised, reducing the effectiveness of reservation policies. Sub-classification could lead to a scenario similar to ‘reverse Pran-Pratishtha’, where the intended unified approach to reservations is undermined. This might result in less effective or equitable distribution of benefits due to internal divisions.
Increased state-level initiatives The judgment could encourage states like Punjab, Bihar, and Tamil Nadu to pursue separate reservations within SC categories. States may implement policies or create subcategories to address specific community needs more effectively.
Political manoeuvring The political manoeuvring surrounding the sub-classification of SCs could lead to strategic effort by various political entities to align with specific community demands and grievances, potentially shaping electoral outcomes and influencing policy directions. Some of the references are:
In Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the Madiga community has been advocating for sub-categorisation within SC reservations, arguing that the Mala community has disproportionately benefited from affirmative action since independence. This demand for sub-categorisation has gained political traction, as evidenced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s participation in a rally organised by the Madiga community. This move appears to be a strategic effort by the ruling party to court the Madiga voters and address their concerns. The central government’s establishment of a panel to review the issues raised by the Madiga community further underscores the political sensitivity of the matter and the attempt to placate this influential group.
In Karnataka, the political parties have been actively engaging with SC communities, attempting to mobilise them based on their affiliations and perceived benefits. The division among SC communities is being framed along ideological lines, such as Left vs. Right Dalits, which could influence voter alignment and support. This strategic differentiation is aimed at consolidating voter bases by aligning party policies with the specific demands and grievances of different SC sub-groups.
Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, who has argued the sub-classification issue, suggests that the principle established by the Supreme Court may extend to Scheduled Tribes (STs) as well. This potential extension could have far-reaching implications, prompting further political manoeuvring and policy adjustments to address similar demands from ST communities.
If similar judgment is extended to Scheduled Tribes (STs), several prominent tribal groups across India would be affected. In Maharashtra, the Gond in Vidarbha and the Bhil in North Maharashtra are key communities. Rajasthan’s Meena, who have a significant influence across the state, and the Bhil in Banswara and Dungarpur, would also be impacted. In Odisha, the Khond and Santal are significant, while in Chhattisgarh, the Gond, Kawar/Kanwar, and Oraon are prominent. Madhya Pradesh’s major tribes include the Bhil and Gond. West Bengal’s Bhil and Debbarma, part of the ancient Tripuri clan, are notable, as are Gujarat’s Bhil and Halpati. In Assam, the influential Bodo and Karbi tribes stand out, while Tripura’s Debbarma and Uttarakhand’s Jaunsari and Tharu are significant tribal groups.
Strengthened demand for caste census The judgment could amplify calls for a comprehensive caste census, providing detailed data on the distribution of different groups within SC/ST categories. This would enable a more informed and equitable allocation of reservations.
Debate on creamy layer principle Observations on the applicability of the creamy layer principle for SCs and STs have sparked debate. Experts argue that these observations, which were not directly related to the sub-categorisation issue, are considered obiter dicta and do not establish binding legal precedent.
Impact on reservation policies The ruling may prompt scrutiny and potential changes in reservation policies. This could affect the distribution of benefits among SC subgroups, potentially leading to shifts based on socioeconomic status and representation.
Legal and administrative challenges The judgment may introduce legal and administrative complexities. States and communities might need to revisit reservation frameworks, conduct community assessments, and address grievances related to representation and benefits, increasing the complexity of managing reservations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to permit sub-classification of SCs offers several benefits, including addressing internal disparities, enhancing the effectiveness of reservation policies, and promoting substantive equality. By allowing states to tailor their affirmative action measures to the specific needs of different sub-groups, the ruling aims to achieve a more equitable and inclusive approach to development. The requirement for quantifiable data and judicial oversight ensures that sub-classification is implemented fairly and transparently, contributing to the overall effectiveness of affirmative action policies.
© Spectrum Books Pvt. Ltd.
