The Supreme Court of India’s ruling in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh was a landmark decision that allowed state governments sub-classification of SCs and STs for quota benefits. Read here to learn more.
The Supreme Court of India in reviewing the judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, delivered a landmark verdict allowing states the authority to sub-classify reserved category groups, such as Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), for reservations.
The ruling came from a seven-judge Bench, which delivered a 6:1 majority opinion. Here’s an overview of the key points of the majority and dissenting opinions, and the implications of this decision.
Sub-classification of SCs and STs: Background
In 1975, the government of Punjab issued a notification dividing its existing 25% reservation for Scheduled Castes (SC) into two categories.
- Half of these seats reserved for the SC category were to be offered to Balmikis (Valmikis) and Mazhabi Sikhs.
- The other half of the reserved seats were for the remaining groups within the SC category.
- This notification continued to remain in effect for 31 years, until the SC’s five-judge bench decision in V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) set aside a similar law in Andhra Pradesh.
- Since the SC’s Chinnaiah decision ruled that sub-classification within the SC category was not permitted, the Punjab and Haryana HC struck down the Punjab notification on 25 July 2006.
E.V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh (2004)
- State governments cannot categorise any group of people as Scheduled Castes. As per Article 341, this power solely belongs to the President.
- The Scheduled Caste category as a whole (as determined under Article 341) was one “homogenous” group.
- This meant that any sub-classification within a homogenous group would result in persons from the same class being treated differently thereby violating the right to equality.
Following the Chinnaiah decision, the Punjab government passed the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 (the Act).
- The Punjab government argued that E.V. Chinnaiah was not by the SC’s nine-judge bench decision in Indra Sawhney v Union of India (1992).
- The Punjab government contended that E.V. Chinnaiah wrongly understood this to mean that only the OBC category could be sub-classified and not the SC category.
- Sub-classification, as introduced by the Punjab government, was permitted by Article 16(4) and furthered the cause of adequate representation.
- Moreover, the SC’s 2018 decision in Jarnail Singh v Lacchmi Narain Gupta permitted sub-classification within the SC category by recognising the ‘creamy layer’ concept.
Five-judge bench decision in 2020
- The five-judge Bench noted that sub-classification was permitted for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) under Article 342A (introduced in 2018), which empowers the President to prepare a list of SEBCs.
- It stated that the constitutional provisions for recognising Scheduled Castes (Article 341), Scheduled Tribes (Article 342), and SEBCs (Article 342A) were ‘pari materia’ (meaning ‘on the same matter’) and must therefore be interpreted similarly.
- Since sub-classification was permitted within the SEBC category (per Indra Sawhney), it cannot be disallowed for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes categories.
- Further, the SC noted that as the State was competent to grant reservation for the SC and ST categories under Articles 15 and 16, it must also be permitted to introduce sub-classification to give effect to the spirit of the right to equality.
- Since the appeal against E.V. Chinnaiah involved the interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 16, 338, 341, 342, and 342A, it was a matter of immense public importance and therefore necessary to ensure that Indra Sawhney and other precedents of the SC were correctly followed.
The case was referred to a seven-judge bench.
The case is expected to answer two primary questions:
- Can sub-classification be permitted for the SC and ST categories since the same is allowed for the SEBC category?
- Are state legislatures competent to introduce sub-classifications within the SC and ST categories?
On 1 August 2024, the top court upheld the validity of sub-classification with the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Categories in a 6:1 majority.
Supreme Court ruling on sub-classification of SCs and STs
- Sub-Classifications Permitted: The Court ruled that states are constitutionally allowed to sub-classify SCs and STs based on varying levels of backwardness within the 15% reservation quota.
- This allows for better support and targeted benefits for the most disadvantaged groups within these communities.
- Difference Between Sub-Classification and Sub-Categorisation: The Chief Justice of India emphasized the distinction between “sub-classification” and “sub-categorisation,” cautioning that these classifications should not be used for political appeasement but for genuine upliftment.
- Empirical Evidence Requirement: The Court noted that sub-classification should be based on empirical data and historical evidence of systemic discrimination, rather than arbitrary or political reasons.
- States must base their sub-classification on solid empirical evidence to ensure fairness and effectiveness.
- Limitation on 100% Reservation: The Court clarified that 100% reservation for any sub-class is not permissible.
- Decisions on sub-classification by states are subject to judicial review to prevent political misuse.
- Application of Creamy Layer Principle: The Supreme Court ruled that the ‘creamy layer’ principle, which was previously applied only to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) (as highlighted in the Indra Sawhney case), should now also be used to SCs and STs.
- This means states must identify and exclude the creamy layer within SCs and STs from reservation benefits to ensure that reservations benefit those who are truly disadvantaged.
- Reservation Limited to First Generation: The Court stated that reservation benefits should be limited only to the first generation.
- If any generation in a family has taken advantage of the reservation and achieved a higher status, the benefit of reservation would not logically be available to the second generation.
Key points of the majority and dissenting opinions
Majority Opinion
- Legitimacy of Sub-Categorization: The majority held that sub-categorization of SCs and STs is constitutionally valid. It asserted that the state governments have the authority to identify the need for sub-classification within SCs and STs to ensure equitable distribution of reservation benefits.
- Objective of Social Justice: The ruling emphasized that sub-classification serves the broader objective of social justice. It aims to ensure that the most marginalized and disadvantaged sub-groups within the SC and ST categories are not overshadowed by relatively better-off groups.
- Affirmative Action: The majority opinion highlighted that affirmative action policies must be dynamic and adapt to address the internal disparities within the SC/ST communities. This approach helps in achieving the constitutional mandate of equality and social justice.
- Overruling Previous Precedents: The Court overruled the V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) decision, which prohibited sub-classification. It stated that the earlier ruling did not account for the necessity of addressing intra-caste inequalities.
- Guidelines for Implementation: The judgment provided guidelines for states to follow, ensuring that sub-classification is based on empirical data and the process is transparent. It requires states to periodically review the socio-economic conditions of sub-groups within SCs and STs.
Dissenting Opinion
- Principle of Non-Discrimination: The dissenting judge argued that sub-classification could lead to discrimination within the SC and ST categories, which contradicts the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution.
- Uniformity in Reservation: The dissenting opinion held that reservations should be uniformly applied to all SCs and STs to maintain the integrity of the categories. Sub-classification might create further divisions and undermine the purpose of reservations.
- Potential for Misuse: There was a concern that sub-classification could be misused for political gains, leading to arbitrary divisions and preferential treatment based on non-objective criteria.
Implications of the Verdict
- Policy and Legislation: States now have the constitutional backing to enact laws and policies for sub-classifying SCs and STs to ensure a more equitable distribution of reservation benefits. This is expected to lead to more nuanced and targeted affirmative action policies.
- Enhanced Social Justice: The decision aims to rectify the imbalance where certain sub-groups within SCs and STs have disproportionately benefited from reservations. It promotes a more inclusive approach to social justice.
- Challenges in Implementation: Implementing sub-classification poses practical challenges, including determining the criteria for sub-classes and ensuring transparency. States need to rely on robust empirical data to avoid arbitrary classifications.
- Political and Social Impact: The ruling could lead to significant political and social implications, with states needing to navigate the complexities of intra-caste dynamics. It may also trigger debates and legal challenges regarding the criteria and processes used for sub-classification.
- Judicial Precedent: The judgment sets a new precedent in the realm of reservation policies, potentially influencing future affirmative action frameworks and judicial interpretations of social justice measures.
Conclusion
This verdict marks a pivotal shift in India’s approach to affirmative action, emphasizing a more granular and equitable distribution of reservation benefits within the SC and ST categories.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q. What are the creamy layer and the non-creamy layer?
Ans: If the income is above 8 lakhs, the person will come under the Creamy Layer. If the income is below 8 lakhs, the person will come under Non-Creamy Layer.
Related articles:
Leave a Reply