STATE TIMEs NEWS

NEW DELHI: In a majority verdict, the Supreme Court on Thursday said that states are empowered to make sub-classifications of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for granting quotas inside the reserved category to uplift more underprivileged castes.
A seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud held by a 6:1 majority that the further sub-classification of SCs and STs by states can be permitted to ensure grant of quota to more backward castes inside these groups.

HIGHLIGHTS

NEW DELHI: Following are highlights of the Supreme Court’s verdict on Thursday that said states were empowered to make sub-classifications of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for granting quotas inside reserved category to uplift more underprivileged castes:

• SC, by majority of 6:1, holds further sub-classification of Scheduled Castes by states can be permitted
• SC overrules 2004 judgment of five-judge bench in EV Chinnaiah case
• SC says Article 14 permits sub-classification of class which is not similarly situated
• SC says historical and empirical evidence demonstrates that Scheduled Castes are a socially heterogenous class
• SC says states must collect data on inadequacy of representation
• SC bats for exclusion of creamy layer even from Scheduled Castes
• Dissenting judge says states cannot vary Presidential List and tinker with Article 341 to provide reservation.

The bench delivered six separate judgments. The majority verdict said the basis of sub-classification has to be justified by “quantifiable and demonstrable data by the states, which cannot act on its whims”.
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 the 2010 verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The CJI wrote for himself and Justice Misra. Four judges wrote concurring judgments while Justice Trivedi dissented.
The top court had reserved the verdict on February 8 on pleas seeking review of the E V Chinnaiah judgement, which in 2004 had ruled that all SC communities which suffered ostracisation, discrimination and humiliation for centuries represented a homogeneous class incapable of being sub-categorised.
The verdict came on references to revisit the five-judge constitution bench judgement of 2004 in the case of EV Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in which it was held that SCs and STs 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.

Backwardness within SCs roadblock to substantive equality: CJI

NEW DELHI: The backwardness within the Scheduled Castes (SC) is a roadblock to achieving “substantive equality” and sub-classification is one of the means to realise it, the Supreme Court said on Thursday.
The remarks were made by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud in his 140-page majority judgement by which the Supreme Court held that states are constitutionally empowered to make sub-classifications within the SCs for granting quota inside the quota as they form a socially heterogeneous class.
The CJI summarised the principles that underpin the objective and yardstick for identifying a beneficiary class under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution.
“The object of the special provisions in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is to provide substantive equality to the beneficiary class. Inter-se backwardness within the class is a roadblock to achieving substantive equality. Sub-classification is one of the means to achieve substantive equality,” Justice Chandrachud said. Sub-article 15(4) stipulates that nothing shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
Sub-article 16(4) of the Constitution states that nothing shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens, which in the opinion of the state, is not adequately represented in the services.
“The beneficiary class in Article 15(4) must be a socially and educationally backward class. ‘Socially and educationally backward’ are not mutually exclusive concepts. The phrase constitutes a constitutional recognition of the sociological reality that educational backwardness is caused by the social backwardness of the class,” he said.
“The beneficiary class in Article 16(4), similar to the class under Article 15(4), must predominantly be socially backward. The purpose of both the provisions is to ensure substantive equality of opportunity to the socially backward communities…,” he said.
The adequacy of representation must be determined based on the standard of effective representation and not numerical representation, he said.
The apex court analysed the judgements and other details to hold that SCs are a “heterogenous class” capable of being sub-classified.
“The Constitution does not provide a definition of the Scheduled Castes. Article 366(24) states that castes/groups notified under Article 341 shall be Scheduled Castes. However, neither Article 341 nor Article 366(24) prescribes the criteria for their identification….,” he said.
The heterogeneity is also evident from the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 where certain castes are notified as SCs in specific localities only.
“For example, in Madhya Pradesh, of the twenty-five castes, only nine are Scheduled Castes throughout the State. The criteria used to identify the Scheduled Castes itself indicates that the endeavor was not to include all castes that suffered from identical forms of untouchability. Thus, the Scheduled Castes are not a homogenous class,” Justice Chandrachud said.
Supreme Court judge Justice Pankaj Mithal said reservation policy requires a fresh relook and new methods are needed for the uplift of people belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC), Schedule Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC).
Justice Mithal said notwithstanding the success or failure of the reservation policy, one thing is for sure that it has burdened the judiciary at all levels, especially the High Courts and the Supreme Court with enormous litigation.
“The policy of reservation as enshrined under the Constitution and by its various amendments requires a fresh re-look and evolvement of other methods for helping and uplifting the depressed class or the downtrodden or the persons belonging to SC/ST/OBC communities. “So long no new method is evolved or adopted, the system of reservation as prevailing may continue to occupy the field with power to permit sub-classification of a class particularly Scheduled Caste as I would not be suggesting dismantling of an existing building without erecting a new one in its place which may prove to be more useful,” Justice Mithal wrote in a separate 51-page judgement.
Justice Mithal said in the constitutional regime, there is no caste system and the country has moved into a casteless society except for the limited purposes of affording reservation to the depressed class of persons, downtrodden or belonging to SC/ST/OBC.