Supreme Court Rules on Quota Within Quota for Marginalised SCs, STs

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has affirmed the legality of sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) for the purpose of reservations. This ruling overturns a 2005 judgment which had restricted state governments from creating sub-categories within these groups. The Court’s 6:1 verdict has significant implications for how reservations are allocated among more marginalised sections within these communities.

Historical Context and Court Ruling

The Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, reviewed the case to determine whether subclassification of SCs and STs was permissible. The previous 2005 ruling had prohibited states from creating sub-categories for reservation purposes. However, the current bench concluded that subclassification is indeed permissible and upheld the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes Act, 2006, and the Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars Act.

CJI Chandrachud emphasized that subclassification does not violate the principle of equality as defined under Article 14 of the Constitution. He acknowledged that members of SCs and STs often face systemic discrimination which hampers their progress. Therefore, creating sub-categories can help in addressing these disparities.

Need for Justifiable Basis

The Court stipulated that any subclassification must be supported by quantifiable and demonstrable data. States must provide solid evidence to justify the need for subclassification, as their decisions will be subject to judicial review. CJI Chandrachud highlighted that states cannot make arbitrary decisions based on political convenience.

Policy and Creamy Layer

Justice BR Gavai, who concurred with the majority judgment, stressed that states have a duty to provide preferential treatment to the more disadvantaged within SCs and STs. He noted that only a few within these categories benefit from reservations, and some groups within SCs and STs have faced greater historical oppression.

Justice Gavai also emphasized the need for a policy to identify the “creamy layer” within SCs and STs before implementing subclassification. This approach is crucial for ensuring genuine equality and effective distribution of reservations. Justice Vikram Nath echoed this view, indicating that the creamy layer principle should apply to SCs similarly to OBCs (Other Backward Classes).

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Bela Trivedi presented a dissenting opinion, arguing that subclassification of SCs and STs by states contradicts Article 341 of the Constitution. Article 341 grants the President the authority to list SCs and STs, and any changes to this list should be made through parliamentary legislation. Justice Trivedi warned that subclassification could lead to unequal treatment within the presidential list, potentially depriving other groups within the same category of their due benefits.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant shift in the reservation policy framework. By allowing subclassification, the Court aims to address the unique challenges faced by more marginalised groups within SCs and STs. However, the emphasis on providing justifiable data and maintaining policies for identifying the creamy layer underscores the need for a balanced approach to ensure that reservations benefit those who are most in need.

Aakhir Tak Editor-in-Chief

See Full Bio