Sub-Classification of SCs and STs : Supreme Court

Why in News?  The Supreme Court of India has recently overturned the 2004 ruling in E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, on sub categorization of Scheduled Tribes & Scheduled castes.

What was the Supreme Court’s Judgment?

Sub-classification Not Permissible: The Court ruled that sub-classification within Scheduled Castes is not permissible. Once a group is recognized as a Scheduled Caste under Article 341 of the Constitution, it cannot be further sub-divided for the purpose of reservations.

Violation of Equality: The Court held that sub-classification would violate the principle of equality as enshrined in the Constitution. Article 341 vests the power to specify Scheduled Castes only with the President of India, and no further sub-classification can be made by the State Legislature.

Preservation of the List: The judgment emphasized that the list of Scheduled Castes under Article 341 should be preserved as it is, and any attempt to alter or further classify it by the state would be unconstitutional.

Recent ruling of supreme court:

• The states are constitutionally allowed to sub-classify SCs and STs based on varying levels of backwardness.
• The states can now sub-classify SCs within the 15% reservation quota to provide better support for the most disadvantaged groups.
• Chief Justice of India emphasised the difference between “sub-classification” and “sub-categorisation,” cautioning against using these classifications for political appeasement rather than genuine upliftment.
• The Court noted that sub-classification should be based on empirical data and historical evidence of systemic discrimination, rather than arbitrary or political reasons.
• States must base their sub-classification on empirical evidence to ensure fairness and effectiveness.
• The Supreme Court has ruled that the ‘creamy layer’ principle, previously applied only to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) (in Indra Sawhney Case), should now also be applied to SCs and STs.

Other related cases:

• In 1975, Punjab issued a notification giving first preference in SC reservations to the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities, two of the most backward communities in the state. This was challenged in 2004 after the apex court struck down a similar law in Andhra Pradesh in E V Chinnnaiah.
• The court had held that any attempts to create a differentiation within the SC list would essentially amount to tinkering with it, for which the Constitution did not empower states. Article 341 only empowers the President to issue such a notification, and Parliament to make additions or deletions to the list. The court also said that sub-classifying SCs violates the right to equality under Article 14.
• Based on this ruling, in 2006, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Dr. Kishan Pal v State of Punjab struck down the aforementioned 1975 notification. However, the very same year, the Punjab government again passed the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, reintroducing the first preference in reservations for the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities.
• This Act was challenged by Davinder Singh, a member of a non-Balmiki, non-Mazhabi Sikh SC community. The HC, in 2010, struck down the Act, leading to an appeal at the Supreme Court. In 2014, the case was referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench to determine if the E V Chinnaiah decision had to be reconsidered.