Context-

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled that states have the authority to subdivide Scheduled Castes (SC) into groups to provide sub-quotas within the larger quota for Dalits. This decision overruled a 2004 judgement by a five-judge Constitution Bench which had held that such sub-classification was impermissible, as only Parliament could modify the list of SCs as notified by the President under Article 341 of the Constitution. This significant ruling opens up new avenues for the representation of weaker sections among Dalits.

The 2004 Judgement

●     Background

The controversy began with the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservation) Ordinance, 1999, and the subsequent Act which created four groups (A, B, C, and D) within the Scheduled Castes, earmarking varying percentages of reservation for each group. The rationale was to address differences in advancement levels among the SC communities to ensure representation for the weaker sub-castes.

●     Supreme Court Ruling

The Andhra Pradesh High Court initially upheld the Act, but the Supreme Court overturned this decision. In the 2004 judgement, the Constitution Bench in E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh held that under Article 341, only the President could notify the list of SCs, and any modification required an act of Parliament. The Bench declared that once included in the SC list, the communities formed a single homogeneous class, and state legislatures were not competent to further classify them into sub-groups.

The Emergence of the Issue Before a Larger Bench

●     Case in Punjab

The Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which provided 25% reservation for SCs and 12% for backward classes in direct recruitment to services, also gave first preference to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs for half the jobs under the SC quota. This was challenged, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court cited the E.V. Chinnaiah judged to strike down the section that gave preference to two specific SC communities.

●     Other Similar Cases

Similarly, the Haryana government's notification dividing SC communities into two blocks and earmarking 50% of the SC quota to each block was struck down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In Tamil Nadu, a law enacted in 2009 provided a sub-quota for Arunthathiyars, considered the weakest among the SCs in the state. This law was directly challenged in the Supreme Court, leading to a reconsideration of the Chinnaiah judgement.

●     Supreme Court’s 2020 Review

In 2020, a Constitution Bench noted discrepancies in the Chinnaiah judgement, especially considering the Indra Sawhney (1992) ruling, which allowed sub-classification of backward classes. However, Chinnaiah had not considered Indra Sawhney a precedent for subdividing SC communities as it only pertained to OBC reservations. Consequently, a larger Bench was constituted to revisit the earlier verdict.

The 2024 Judgement

●     Majority Opinion

Six out of seven judges ruled that the 2004 judgement was incorrect. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, writing on behalf of himself and Justice Manoj Mishra, argued that SC communities are not a homogeneous class as previously ruled. While they share a common constitutional identity based on their experiences of untouchability and discrimination, there exists significant heterogeneity among them.

●     Historical and Empirical Evidence

The Chief Justice cited historical and empirical evidence to demonstrate the inter-se differences among SC communities, including instances where some sections of SCs faced discrimination from other SC communities. Thus, he argued that sub-classification was permissible if based on an "intelligible differentia" (a clear characteristic distinguishing one group from another) and if it had a rational nexus to the purpose of sub-classification. Such sub-classification would be subject to judicial review, and the State would need to justify it with empirical data.

●     Article 341 Interpretation

The Chief Justice also contended that sub-classification does not equate to tinkering with the Presidential list under Article 341. The function of Article 341 was to identify who came under the category of Scheduled Castes, but it did not preclude states from identifying those with different degrees of backwardness to extend reservation benefits.

●     Dissenting Opinion

Justice Bela Trivedi, in her dissent, upheld the Chinnaiah doctrine, arguing that sub-classifying a homogeneous class was impermissible and amounted to tinkering with the President's list under Article 341.

The Creamy Layer Debate

●     Current Status

The creamy layer concept, which identifies the more advanced individuals among OBCs to exclude them from reservation benefits, has not been extended to Dalit communities so far.

●     Justice B.R. Gavai's Opinion

Justice B.R. Gavai, in a separate but concurring opinion with the Chief Justice, emphasised the need to identify the more advanced among the SCs and exclude them from affirmative action benefits. He noted significant differences in access to resources and opportunities between urban and rural areas and between elite institutions and under-resourced schools. Treating all members of SC communities as equal, regardless of their socio-economic status, would violate the principle of equality. However, he acknowledged that the criteria for identifying the creamy layer among SCs should differ from those used for OBCs.

●     Government Direction

Despite these opinions, the Supreme Court's judgement does not constitute a directive to the government to implement the creamy layer concept for SCs, as the issue did not directly arise in this case.

Implications and Future Prospects

●     Encouragement for Sub-Quotas

The new ruling is expected to encourage states to earmark sub-quotas for the most marginalised sections of Dalits who have not yet benefited from reservation policies.

●     Judicial Review and Empirical Justification

Any sub-classification will be subject to judicial review, and states will need to provide empirical data to justify their decisions, ensuring that sub-quotas are based on clear and rational criteria.

●     Legislative Action

The decision may prompt further legislative action at both state and national levels to address the nuances of reservation policies and ensure that the benefits reach the intended beneficiaries.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's ruling marks a significant shift in the interpretation of reservation policies for Scheduled Castes in India. By allowing sub-classification within the SC quota, the Court has acknowledged the heterogeneity within Dalit communities and the need for more targeted affirmative action measures. While the debate over the creamy layer among SCs continues, the judgement paves the way for a more nuanced approach to reservations, ensuring that the weakest sections within the SC communities receive adequate representation and opportunities.

Source- The Hindu