The SC delivered a verdict on SC/ST sub-classification.

Context :

A seven-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud ruled that state governments can make sub-classifications in the quotas for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to uplift the more underprivileged castes within these communities provided the States must justify the basis of sub-classification with quantifiable and demonstrable data.

It is noted that only one judge on the bench, Justice Bela Trivedi, dissented ensuring that SCs are identified and categorised by the President in consultation with the Governor and through public notification, as per Article 341.

The Court emphasised the need to identify a ‘creamy layer’ among SCs/STs to maintain equitable representation and advised limiting reservation benefits to the first generation of beneficiaries who have achieved higher status.

Find out what the SC held earlier :

• In 1975, the Punjab government issued a notification regarding Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikhs.
• In 2004, the SC struck down the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000.
• The SC held in E.V. Chinnaiah (2004) that the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 violated Article 14, treating the SC list as a single, homogenous group, and reaffirmed that states should not interfere with the list under Article 341.
• In Dr Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab (2006), the Punjab Act was struck down by the J&H High Court in 2010.
• Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) highlighted the need for a larger bench.

SC’s Verdict on Sub-Classifications of  SCs and STs

• Justice Gavai opined that “unequal have to be treated unequally to bring “real equality”.
• The Court ruled that states can sub-classify SCs and STs, and the Chief Justice emphasized the difference between “sub-classification” and “sub-categorisation.
• The Court ruled that states are constitutionally allowed to sub-classify SCs within the 15% reservation quota to provide better support for the most backward SCs.
• The Court stated that 100% reservation for any sub-class is not permissible.
• State’s decisions on sub-classification are subject to judicial review to prevent political abuse.
• The Supreme Court has concluded that the ‘creamy layer’ principle, originally applicable only to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the Indra Sawhney case, should now extend to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).

Constitutional Provisions for Sub-Classification :

• Social Justice: As reflected in the Preamble.
• Principle of Equity
• Promotion of Fraternity among citizens.
• Article 14: Equality before law
• Article 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
• Article 15(4): Added by 1^st Constitutional Amendment Act, 1951.

The state can make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward citizens or for the betterment of SC and STs.

• Article 16(4) – Reservation is given to SC, ST, and OBC in government jobs.
• Article 23: Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour (Dalits)
• Article 38: Promotion of social order for public welfare by the state.
• Article 342A facilitates states in having the flexibility to uphold their lists of socially and economically backward classes.

Challenges for Sub-Classification:

• Parameters for sub-classification: “Substantial representation,” rather than merely “numerical representation.” It poses a challenge to ensure both the accuracy of data and the absence of biases.
• Resistance from Communities: Some communities may resist sub-classification if they feel it threatens their existing rights or benefits, leading to social unrest.
• Administrative Load: Creating, managing, and updating sub-categories places a considerable administrative load on government agencies, requiring extra resources and personnel.
• Political Manipulation: There is a risk of political parties manipulating sub-classifications to garner votes, which may undermine the intended purpose of upliftment and social justice.
• Inequitable Distribution of Benefits: Sub-classification might lead to unequal distribution of benefits, with some groups receiving more resources and support than others, potentially causing resentment among marginalized communities.

Way forward :

• Collaboration with Research Institutions: Partner with research institutions to conduct studies on the socio-economic conditions of SCs and STs, informing the sub-classification process.
• Follow Provision under Article 340
• Use the Gini Coefficient to measure income inequality in a population.
• Upcoming Census: Take advantage of the upcoming Census to obtain comprehensive data on SCs and STs, focusing on sub-group-specific details.
• Clear Criteria for Sub-Classification: Develop transparent and objective criteria for sub-classifying SCs and STs, ensuring that these criteria are based on empirical evidence and socio-economic factors.
• Collaboration with Research Institutions: Partner with research institutions to conduct studies on the socio-economic conditions of SCs and STs, informing the sub-classification process.
• Legal Framework: Establish a clear legal framework governing sub-classification to minimize disputes and ensure compliance with constitutional provisions.

Overall, Rather than achieving it in one go, it should be done in a piecemeal manner.

Explore our courses: https://apnipathshala.com/courses/

Explore Our test Series: https://tests.apnipathshala.com/