Sub-classification of SCs, STs Has Significant Implications for Social Justice

Supreme Court. Image used for representational purposes only. 

(Photo: Altered by The Quint)

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held on 1 August that the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) was permissible.

The Constitutional bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, in a 6:1 verdict, has overruled the apex court’s 2005 judgment that state governments had no power to create subcategories of SCs for reservations. In EV Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh, 2005, the Supreme Court held that SCs notified under Article 341 formed one homogeneous group and could not be subcategorised further.   

But now, in a significant judgment that has implications for social justice, the SC stated that a quota within a quota is not against the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

However, the top court held that ‘quantifiable and demonstrable’ data has to justify the basis for sub-classification. The state can neither earmark 100 percent reservation for a subclass nor act on whims or political expediency; its decisions are subject to judicial review. 

The issue of sub-categorisation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has been rocking India's political and legal system for several years. A section of these communities have demanded it to ensure the equitable distribution of benefits of affirmative action provided by the Constitution.   

A five-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice Arun Mishra in 2020 in State of Punjab v Davinder Singh held that States can sub-classify Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Central List to provide preferential treatment to the weakest out of the weak. The matter was referred to a seven-judge bench.

This case is related to a law in Punjab, the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, that stipulated that 50 percent of seats reserved for SCs shall be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs on a preferential basis.

In 2010, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had struck down this provision, relying on the Supreme Court's EV Chinnaiah judgment. In a challenge to the High Court verdict, the five-member bench of the apex court referred the matter to the seven-judge bench which delivered its verdict now. 

The implementation of reservations affected intra-class formations, creating an impermeable membrane to block the percolation of benefits of reservations to the most deprived. 

As the apex court earlier observed, “Citizens cannot be treated to be socially and educationally backwards till perpetuity; those who have come up must be excluded like the creamy layer”. 

Sub-categorisation Furthers Constitutional Vision

Article 16(4) of the Constitution says, “Nothing in this article 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”. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are also included in the expression Backward Class of citizens. 

This reveals that the constitutional scheme of reservations is a positive discrimination mechanism, based on providing equal justice by correcting the imbalances in education and employment.

Therefore, if a section of a class enjoys disproportionate benefits to the detriment of the others, the class's sub-categorisation is justified under the spirit of the Constitution itself. 

Preferential treatment to ensure the even distribution of reservation benefits to the more backward is a facet of the right to equality, which forms part of the Constitution's basic structure.

Therefore, as Justice Arun Mishra wrote on behalf of the constitutional bench, “The State cannot be deprived of the power to take care of the qualitative and quantitative difference between different classes... to take ameliorative measures. When reservation creates inequalities within the reserved castes itself, it is required to be taken care of by the State by making sub-classification so that State largesse does not concentrate in few hands and equal justice is provided to all.”  

So, the latest verdict of the seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court overrules EV Chinnaiah, which held that allowing states to unilaterally “making a class within a class of members of the Scheduled Castes” would amount to tinkering with the Presidential list (something that Justice Trivedi, who has dissented in the 2024 judgment, has also held).

Sub-categorisation does not take away the benefit of reservations. It is not an act of exclusion. Instead, it only seeks to remedy the deprivation of reservation for one group that the other disproportionately enjoys.

Allotting a different percentage of reservations for a subgroup from amongst the total reservations allocated to that group does not deprive one class of the benefits of reservations.

Justice Arun Mishra observed the same in his judgment when he said sub-classifications within the Presidential/Central List do not amount to tinkering with it. No caste is excluded from the list. States only give preference to the weakest of the lot in a pragmatic manner based on statistical data. 

SCs and STs are not Homogenous

The objection to the sub-categorisation of SCs and STs can be on the grounds that Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes are homogeneous and should be considered as a class in themselves for the Constitutional scheme of reservations.  

But, Justice VR Krishna Iyer said in State of Kerala v N M Thomas, a plain reading of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution (provisions related to SC and ST reservations) brings out the quintessential concept that they (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) are an amalgam of castes, races, groups, tribes, communities thereof found on investigation to be the lowliest and in need of massive state aid and notified as such by the President.  

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Central List do not constitute a homogenous group. The entire basket of fruits cannot be given to the mighty at the cost of others under the guise of forming a homogenous class, as noted in the 2020 verdict of the Supreme Court.  

Benefitting the Truly Backward 

Reservations have created inequalities within the reserved castes themselves. There is a caste struggle within the reserved class as the benefits of reservation are being usurped by a few. 

Therefore, the reservation policy cannot be indifferent to the degree of backwardness within a class of citizens as the philosophy of affirmative action aims to uplift the most depressed and the most deprived.

Having found a class of persons within the OBCs, SCs, or STs as having been deprived of such benefits, the State has the exclusive legislative power to make such grouping for reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution. 

In the historic Indra Sawhney verdict, the apex court commented, “There is no constitutional or legal bar to a State categorising the Backward Classes as backward and more backward…” 

If all of them are grouped and reservations provided, the inevitable result would be that the less backward would take away all the reserved posts leaving none for more backward.  

In Indra Sawhney, the court further observed “If the connecting link is the social backwardness, it should broadly be the same in a given class. If some of the members are far too advanced socially (which in the context, necessarily means economically and, may also mean, educationally) the connecting thread between them and the remaining class snaps. They would be misfits in the class. After excluding them alone, would the class be compact? Such exclusion benefits the truly backward".  

Justice Chinnappa Reddy in Vasant Kumar, said: “We do not see why on principle there cannot be a classification into Backward Classes and More Backward Classes, if both classes are not merely a little behind, but far behind the most advanced classes. In fact, such a classification would be necessary to help the more backward classes; otherwise those of the Backward Classes who might be a little more advanced than the more backward classes might walk away with all the seats”. 

Need for Caution While Drawing the Line

However, the State should exercise extreme caution while undertaking sub-categorisation or sub-classification of backward classes in the Constitutional sense, which includes Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.  

In Indra Sawhney, the Supreme Court warned, “The difficulty, however, really lies in drawing the line - how and where to draw the line? For, while drawing the line, it should be ensured that it does not result in taking away with one hand what is given by the other. The basis of exclusion should not merely be economic, unless, of course, the economic advancement is so high that it necessarily means social advancement.” 

In the state of Jammu and Kashmir v Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors., the Supreme Court held, “Classification, therefore, must be truly founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the group and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.” 

Thus, the Indian jurisprudence culminating in the verdict of the seven-judge bench now concludes as follows: 

1. Sub-categorisation or sub-classification of SCs, STs, and backward classes furthers the constitutional vision of affirmative action in favour of the less privileged.  

2. Therefore, sub-classification does not violate Article 14 which guarantees equality.  

3. Sub-classification does not violate Article 341 of the Constitution as the said article is not the basis for reservations but only provides the process for identification of Scheduled castes. 

4. Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes are not homogenous, but an amalgam of caste, communities, etc., and therefore sub-classification passes the test of reasonable classification.  

5. Article 16(4) of the constitution or for that matter, no other constitutional provisions, bars the State from effecting sub-classification of reserved categories. 

6. However, the sub-classification should be based on empirical data that withstand judicial scrutiny.  

7. The policy of reservations cannot remain static and oblivious to the quantitative and qualitative changes taking place over a period of time in the state of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes.  

8. In fact, the absence of sub-classification would result in the appropriation of reservation benefits by the ‘less backward’ at the expense of the ‘more backward.’ 

9. However, the State should be cautious about where and how the demarcation line is to be drawn for sub-classification. 

10. The political expediency or the whims of the State cannot be the basis for sub-classification.  

To conclude, the Indian citizen wonders where our jurisprudence will take us next. Does this landmark ruling truly indicate that we are progressing in the right direction, with all of us standing on equal footing? Or is this a human pyramid just waiting to collapse?  

(Prof K Nageshwar is a senior political analyst, faculty member of Osmania University, and a former MLC. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)