Justice Pankaj Mithal stated, “Reservations should be designated solely for the first generation within a category,” as the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that sub-classification among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is permissible. He emphasized the necessity for a periodic assessment of reservations to determine whether the “second generation has achieved parity with the general category.”
The seven-judge constitutional bench, with a majority of 6:1, affirmed the legality of sub-classifying groups within the reserved categories of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. While six judges supported this decision, Justice Bela Trivedi expressed dissent.
The judgment also invalidated the ruling in the EV Chinnaiah case. During that case, Justices N Santosh Hegde, SN Variava, BP Singh, HK Sema, SB Sinha concluded that all the castes mentioned in the Presidential Order under Article 341(1) of the Constitution were considered as one unified group and could not be segregated any further. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud of India stated that historical evidence confirms that Scheduled Castes, as notified by the President, are a diverse group rather than a uniform one.
Top Quotes From Justice Pankaj Mithal
Reservations should be designated solely for the first generation within a specific category. If a second generation emerges, the advantages of reservation should no longer apply, and the state must assess whether the second generation has achieved parity with the general category following the implementation of reservations.
Top Quotes From CJI DY Chadrachud
The members of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) frequently encounter barriers to advancement due to systemic discrimination. Article 14 allows for the sub-classification of castes, and it is the responsibility of the court to determine whether a class is homogeneous; if a class is not integrated for a specific purpose, it may be subject to further classification.
Historical data indicates that the depressed classes are not a homogeneous group, and social conditions reveal that the various classes within this category are not uniform. In the state of Madhya Pradesh, for instance, only 9 out of 25 castes are recognized as Scheduled Castes. Furthermore, historical evidence supports the assertion that the Scheduled Castes designated by the President represent a heterogeneous group.
Articles 15, 16, and 341 do not impose any restrictions on the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes, provided there is a rational basis for such distinctions and a logical connection to the objectives intended to be achieved. The challenges faced by a class do not diminish simply because they receive representation in lower-level positions. The ruling in Chinnaiah has been overturned.
Top Quotes From Justice Gavai
The speech delivered by Dr. Ambedkar in 1949 stressed the necessity of social democracy in conjunction with political democracy. It is essential to recognize that the challenges faced by various scheduled castes differ from one another. The argument that reservations for sub-castes are used for political advantage is not valid, as the ultimate aim should be to achieve genuine equality. Judicial rulings have emphasized the importance of basing policies on empirical evidence.
Top Quotes From Justice Bela Trivedi
I must express my respectful dissent from the majority opinion. I find the approach taken by the three-judge bench to refer the matter to a larger bench without providing any justification to be unsatisfactory. The order issued by the three-judge bench was vague and cursory, lacking any rationale. The doctrine of precedents is fundamental to our legal framework. In this instance, the reference to reconsider EV Chinnaiah was made without any explanation and occurred 15 years after the original judgment.
The very act of making this reference was fundamentally flawed. In the absence of executive or legislative authority, states lack the competence to further classify castes and to differentiate the benefits reserved for all Scheduled Castes. Under the pretext of implementing reservations, states cannot alter the presidential list, as such actions would constitute a colorable exercise of power, which is not permissible under the law. The principle of colorable exercise of power asserts that actions not allowed directly cannot be executed indirectly.
Top Quotes From Justice SC Sharma
The recognition of a creamy layer within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be established as a constitutional necessity.
Key Takeaways From The Supreme Court Ruling
- Sub-classification amongst reserved categories permissible: SC majority verdict holds
- Supreme court overrules the EV Chinnaiah judgement
- Supreme Court says SC/STs cannot be considered to be homogenous
- Supreme Court says sub-classification is only possible if supported by quantifiable data.
- Permissible for Centre and States to earmark most backward classes within the reserved category of SC/ST: Supreme Court
EV Chinnaiah Judgement?
In the case of EV Chinnaiah vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, decided in 2005, the bench comprising Justices N Santosh Hegde, SN Variava, BP Singh, HK Sema, and SB Sinha determined that all castes listed in the Presidential Order under Article 341(1) of the Constitution constituted a single class of a homogeneous group, which could not be further divided.