Listen to Story
Advertisement
In a 6:1 verdict, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that subclassification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was permissible to grant separate quotas for the more marginalised among backward communities. Justice Bela Trivedi has dissented.
The Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, overruled the 2005 judgment of the top court that had held that state governments had no power to create sub-categories of SCs for the purpose of reservation.
advertisementThe court, thus, upheld the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes Act, 2006, and the Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars Act.
Apart from the CJI and Justice Trivedi, the bench comprised of Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and SC Sharma.
Holding that quota within quota was not against quality, the CJI Chandrachud said members of SC/ST were not often able to climb up the ladder due to the systemic discrimination faced.
"Sub-classification does not violate the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution," the top court said.
However, the Supreme Court said the basis of subclassification in SCs and STs would have to be justified by quantifiable and demonstrable data by the states.
"States cannot act on its whims or political expediency and its decision is amenable to judicial review," CJI Chandrachud said.
Concurring with the majority judgement, Justice BR Gavai said it was the state's duty to give preferential treatment to the more backward communities.
"Only a few people within the category of SC/ST are enjoying the reservations. The ground realities cannot be denied and there are categories within the SC/STs which have faced more oppression for centuries," Justice Gavai said.
However, Justice Gavai said states must bring out a policy to identify creamy layers among the SC and ST categories before subclassification.
"This is the only way to gain true equality," he said. "Children of an SC category person who has got the benefit of reservation cannot be put on the same pedestal as the children of a person who has not availed of reservation," Justice Gavai said in his 281-page judgement.
Echoing his view, Justice Vikram Nath said the creamy layer principle applied to the SCs just like it was applicable to the OBCs.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma also in his judgement said, "The issue of identification of creamy layer qua SC/STs ought to become a constitutional imperative for the state."
Stressing that reservation should be only limited to the first generation, Justice Pankaj Mithal said, "If any member of the first generation has reached a higher status through reservation, then the second generation should not be entitled to reservation."
"There was no caste system in primitive India. Slowly, the Varna system was misconstrued to be a caste system whose practice was found to be socially non-acceptable and, as such, after independence with the adoption of the Constitution, we again tried to move into a casteless society, but in the name of social welfare to uplift the depressed and the backward classes, we again fell into the trap of caste system," Justice Mithal said.
In her dissenting verdict, Justice Bela Trivedi said subclassification of SCs/STs by states was contrary to Article 341 of the Constitution. Article 341 confers the President the right to prepare the list of SC/STs.
Justice Trivedi said Article 341 was enacted to prevent political factors playing a role in the SC/ST list.
"Castes can be included or excluded from the Presidential list only by a law enacted by Parliament. Subclassification will amount to tinkering of the Presidential list," Justice Trivedi said.
"Any preferential treatment for a sub-class within the Presidential list will lead to deprivation of the benefits of the other classes within the same category," she further said.
