The
Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that state governments can make
sub-classifications in the quotas for Scheduled Castes (SCs) to uplift the more
underprivileged castes within these communities.
A
seven-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, said the
SCs formed a socially heterogeneous class. But it also cautioned the States
that the basis of sub-classification has to be justified by “quantifiable and
demonstrable data by the States, which cannot act on its whims”.
Only
one judge on the bench, Justice Bela Trivedi, dissented.
The
bench, also comprising justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj
Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Mishra, was hearing 23 petitions,
including the lead one filed by the Punjab government challenging a 2010
verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The
bench delivered six separate judgements.
The
CJI wrote for himself and Justice Misra. Four judges wrote concurring judgments
while Justice Trivedi dissented. In her dissenting verdict, Justice Trivedi
said states cannot tinker with the Scheduled Caste list notified under Article
341 of the Constitution.
The verdict came on references to revisit the
five-judge Constitution bench judgement of 2004 in the case of EV Chinnaiah
versus State of Andhra Pradesh. It had ruled that the SCs are homogenous groups
and hence, States cannot further sub-classify them to grant quota inside quota
for more deprived and weaker castes in these groups.
Justice
Gavai, in a separate verdict, said that States must identify the creamy layer
in SCs and take them out of reservation. Justice Vikram Nath said he agreed
with Justice Gavai, and that the "criteria for exclusion of creamy layer
for the purpose of affirmative action could be different from the criteria as
applicable to the Other Backward Classes".
Justice
Pankaj Mithal said that reservation policy requires a fresh relook and new
methods are needed for the uplift of people belonging to SCs, STs and OBCs.
Chief
Justice Chandrachud said SCs are not an integrated or homogenous group.
States
can identify the differing degrees of discrimination or backwardness and focus
on greater benefits to sub-classes of SCs. This would not violate the
President’s exclusive authority under Article 341 to identify SCs.