Scheduled Castes Sub-Classification by States Constitutionally Permissible: Supreme Court Landmark Ruling.

The Seven Judge bench of the Supreme Court of India ruled that states possess the constitutional authority to create sub-categories within the broader Scheduled Caste (SC) category for the purpose of reservation benefits. This judgment, delivered in State of Punjab & Ors v. Davinder Singh & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 2317/2011), overturns the 2005 E.V. Chinnaiah precedent, which had held such sub classification impermissible.

The seven-judge bench, however, was not unanimous in its decision. While a majority of five judges found sub classification constitutionally valid, two judges penned dissenting opinions, highlighting the complexities surrounding the intersection of presidential authority, state power, and social justice.
A central point of contention revolved around Article 341, which grants the President the power to identify and notify Scheduled Castes. Those opposing sub-classification argued that this presidential list creates a legally homogenous category, barring any further state-level divisions. They asserted that only Parliament, through a list amendment, could alter the composition of Scheduled Castes.

in the judgment delivered by Chief Justice of India Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud & Justice Manjola Misra observed that Article 14 permits sub-classification within a class for purposes of law. The Chief Justice states that a class must not be similarly situated for the purpose of law. He argued that "efficiency of administration must be viewed in a manner which promotes inclusion and equality as required by Article 16(1)."
and the judgment begins with observations as follows...

"2. Article 14 of the Constitution stipulates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Article 15(1) states that the State should not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Article 15(4) stipulates that nothing in Article 15 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

3. Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Clause (1) of Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Clause (2) stipulates that no citizen shall be discriminated in or be ineligible for any employment or office under the State on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. Clause (4) of the provision states that nothing in Article 16 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 under the State"

Justice B.R. Gavai noted that the Scheduled Castes are not a homogeneous group and that "the hardships and the backwardness which these categories have suffered historically would differ from category to category." He argued that treating all Scheduled Castes as a single homogeneous group "for the purpose of affirmative action" would not be fair. He states that "a reasonable classification is implicit in the trinity of Articles 14 to 16." He also states that sub-classification within Scheduled Castes for purposes of affirmative action "does not include or exclude any caste or group from the List." He believes the state should create a policy for identifying the "creamy layer" within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in order to determine who should be excluded from the benefits of reservation.
Quoting what the Dr. Ambedkar has once said, Justice Gavai observed that "I may gainfully refer to the observations of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as under:
“History shows that where ethics and economics come in conflict, victory is always with economics. Vested interests have never been known to have willingly divested themselves unless there was sufficient force to compel them.”

Justice Vikram Nath agreed with Justice Gavai that the "creamy layer" principle should also apply to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and that the criteria for excluding people for affirmative action could be different for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes than for other backward classes.

Justice Bela M. Trivedi stated her belief that sub-classification within Scheduled Castes is not constitutionally permissible. She argued that "the law laid down by the Five-Judge Bench in E.V. Chinnaiah is the correct law and deserves to be confirmed." She noted that in Indra Sawhney, the nine-judge bench had kept Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes "outside the purview of consideration." Justice Trivedi believes that the three-judge bench in Davinder Singh should not have referred the matter to the seven-judge bench, as it had been settled by the previous constitution bench in E.V. Chinnaiah.

Justice Pankaj Mithal agreed with the conclusion of Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Gavai that sub-classification within Scheduled Castes is permissible under the Constitution. Justice Mithal believes that the State should evolve a policy of identifying the creamy layer within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Jusctice Mithal observed that "....if few members of a particular caste/class advances in the society the entire caste or class would not cease to be backward. Nonetheless if any member of designated backward class acquires a higher status and attains equality with the forward class, it is difficult to comprehend how his children would be treated as depressed, downtrodden or backward in any manner be it socially, economically or educationally."

Justice Satish Chandra Sharma agreed with the opinions of Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Gavai that sub-classification within Scheduled Castes is constitutionally permissible. He believes that the state must come up with a way of identifying the creamy layer within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in order to decide who to exclude from reservation benefits.

The majority, however, adopted a more nuanced understanding of Article 341, particularly emphasizing the phrase "for the purposes of this Constitution." They argued that this wording suggests a broader application of the list, enabling states to use it as a foundation for crafting equitable reservation policies within their jurisdictions. This interpretation, the majority held, aligns with Article 16(4), which empowers states to identify backward classes requiring reservations. Justice Gavai, in his concurring opinion, addressed the potential for "reverse discrimination" if intra-caste disparities within the SC category remain unaddressed. He noted the example of children of successful individuals from backward classes continuing to receive full reservation benefits, despite their families experiencing significant social and economic advancement. This, he argued, could result in the most disadvantaged within the SC community being deprived of opportunities.

Underscoring the historical context of Scheduled Castes, Justice Gavai emphasized the enduring "taint of untouchability" as a defining characteristic. He recognized that the degree of untouchability experienced can vary significantly within the SC category, advocating for a nuanced approach to reservation policies that acknowledge these lived realities.

The judgment also grappled with the relationship between social and educational backwardness. Justice Gavai acknowledged that while educational advancement often correlates with social progress, focusing solely on educational criteria may not adequately capture the persistent social disadvantages stemming from untouchability.

This landmark decision carries significant implications for how India's reservation system operates. By empowering states to tailor reservation benefits to those most in need within the Scheduled Caste category, the judgment aims to paves the way to ensure that the benefits of affirmative action reach the most marginalized and The majority of judges emphasisess on taking measures for excluding the "creamy layer" from getting the benifits. However, it also raises concerns about potential manipulation of the system for political gains, necessitating robust safeguards and judicial oversight to prevent misuse.

In conclusion the court held that "The holding in Chinnaiah (supra) that sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes is impermissible is overruled. The scope of sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes is summarized below:
i. The objective of any form of affirmative action including subclassification is to provide substantive equality of opportunity for the backward classes. The State can sub-classify, inter alia, based on inadequate representation of certain castes. However, the State must establish that the inadequacy of representation of a caste/group is because of its backwardness;
ii. The State must collect data on the inadequacy of representation in the “services of the State” because it is used as an indicator of backwardness; and
iii. Article 335 of the Constitution is not a limitation on the exercise of power under Articles 16(1) and 16(4). Rather, it is a restatement of the necessity of considering the claims of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in public services. Efficiency of administration must be viewed in a manner which promotes inclusion and equality as required by Article 16(1)."

The dissenting opinions, emphasizing the need for a uniform national policy on Scheduled Caste identification, highlight the enduring complexities of balancing social justice, federalism, and executive power in the context of India's diverse and evolving society.

CORAM: Hon'ble CJI Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Manjola Misra, Justice B.R. Gavai,
Justice Bela M. Trivedi & Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Pankaj Mithal & Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01-08-2024