Preface for the topic
In the following Judgement, a seven- judge Bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday (August 1) reframed how the SC’s and ST’s share may operate on the basis of their quotas and reservation. In a 6:1 ruling, the decision leaded by D Y Chandrachud “permitted states to produce sub-classifications within the SC and ST orders for the purpose of according wider. This judgement changed the previous decision of the court which was given in the case E V Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh, in which it was held that “the SC ST list is a “ homogenous group ” that can not be divided further”. The following judgement was majorily made in favour of sub – categorization except of Hon’ble Justice Bela Trivedi who didn’t agreed with the idea of this sub categorization of reservation
Overview of Quota/ reservation in respect of this case
“Article 341” of the Constitution allows the President, through a public announcement, to list as SC “gentries, races or lines ”. SC groups are concertedly accorded 15 percent reservation in education and public employment. Over the times, some groups within the SC list have been underrepresented compared to others. States have made attempts to extend further protection to these groups, but the issue has run into judicial scrutiny. In 1975, Punjab issued a announcement 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 analogous law in Andhra Pradesh in E V Chinnnaiah. The court had held that any attempts to produce a isolation within the SC list would basically amount to tinkering with it, for which the Constitution didn’t empower countries. Provision of Constitution of India(Article 341) only empowers the President to issue such a announcement, and Parliament to make additions or elisions to the list. The court said that sub-classifying SCs violates the living rights. Grounded on this ruling, in 2006, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Dr. Kishan confidante v State of Punjab struck down the forenamed 1975 announcement. still, the veritably same time, the Punjab government again passed the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes( Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, introducing the first preference in reservations for the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities.
Present case
Davinder Singh challenged the above made provison. The act was further laid down by the High Court in 2010. Further to this decision, appeal was moved to SC. In 2014, the case was appertained to a five- judge Constitution Bench to determine if the E V Chinnaiah decision had to be re-evaluated . In 2020, the Justice Arun Mishra- headed Constitution Bench in Davinder Singh v State of Punjab held that the court’s 2004 decision needed retrospection. The ruling noted that the court and the state “ can not be a silent on looker and shut its eyes to stark realities ”. Crucially, it dissented with the premise that SC are a homogeneous group, saying there are “unequals within the list of slated gentries, slated lines, and socially and educationally backward classes. ” . Following issues were prevailing in this case before the judges-
Issue No.1 -Are all “castes” in the SC list to be treated as in a same manner?
Provision of the Constitution(Art 341(1)) gives the President the power to “ specify the gentries, races or lines ” in a state, which shall “ for the purposes of this Constitution be supposed to be slated gentries in relation to that State or Union home, as the case may be ”. Following such a announcement “Art. 341(2)” states that only Parliament can include or count “any estate, race or lineage ” from the list of SCs. The CJI nominated the Presidential list of SCs a “ legal fabrication ” — commodity that does n’t live in actuality but is “ treated as real and being for the purpose of law ”. A slated estate isn’t commodity that was before the Constitution came into force, and is recognised so that benefits can be handed to communities in the list.
CJI Chandrachud said this legal fabrication can not be “stretched ” to claim that there are no “internal differences” among SCs.
Issue No.2 -Can states sub-classify the Presidential list?
Provision of the constitution of India (Art 15(4)) gives states the authority to make “ any special qualification ” for the enhancement of SCs. Provision of the constitution (Art16( 4)) gives states the special authority to give “ reservations of movables or posts in favour of any backward class of subjects which is not adequately described in the services of the country ”. The court, in E V Chinnaiah, had held that the authority under these papers was limited to furnishing proportions in instruction and public employment to the country’s backward classes. It held that formerly reservations have been handed to SCs as a entire, “ it isn’t open to the country to sub-classify a class formerly recognized by the Constitution and lot a portion of the formerly reserved share amongst the country created sub-class ” within the SC list. On the day of judgement, the maturity opinion held that “ the country in exercise of its authority under Articles 15 and 16 is free to identify the non-identical stages of gregarious backwardness and give special vittles( similar as reservation) to achieve the special place of detriment linked ”. Justice Gavai spoke that equivalency of occasion( Art. 16) must regard for the varying gregarious positions of non-identical communities. When the same openings are handed to SC communities that are on non-identical cornerstones it “ can only mean botheration of inequality ”. On the motive of SC communities that resist sub-classification, he spoke that their “station” is akin to “ that of a person in the general cube of the cortege . Originally, the persons outside the cube plodded to get into the general cube. Still, once they get inside it, they make every attempt practicable to help the persons outside such a cube from entering it ”.
Issue No. 3- What’s the mark for sub-classification?
The maturity opinion drew strict redlines for countries on how to work out the sub-quotas. States will have to demonstrate a want for wider walls, bring existential substantiation, and have a “reasonable ” explanation for categorizing sub-groups. This logic can be further be tried in court. The CJI underscored that any shape of representation in public services must be in the shape of “ operative representation ”, not simply “ numerical representation ”. As a result, indeed if an SC community is described adequately precisely by the figures, they may be banned from scoring “operative ” representation by being promoted to advanced posts. consequently the country must establish that the “ group/ estate sculpted out from the larger group of slated gentries is more underprivileged and deficiently described, and this must be grounded on quantifiable data ” .
Issue No. 4 -Does the “Creamy Layer” principle apply to SC and ST?
Only the opinion of Justice Gavai batons for introducing the C.L expostulation for SCs and STs that’s formerly followed for Other Backward Classes( OBCs). This conception places an profit line on reservation eligibility, icing that the heirs are those in a community that need proportions the most. Four of the seven judges agreed on idea of “creamy layer” .
What are the expostulations for Sub-Classification?
Data Collection and substantiation Gathering accurate and complete data on the socio- profitable conditions of non-identical sub-groups within SCs and STs is essential and the states must calculate on existential substantiation to justify their sub-classification opinions. Moreover, Icing data delicacy and finessing impulses can be grueling . Balancing Interests Sub-classification aims to hoist the most underprivileged sub-groups, but balancing contending interests can be daedal. Also While sub-classification allows acclimatizing programs, it may conduct to variations across various states . Striking a balance between uniformity and addressing original requirements is a challenge. Icing that sub-categories don’t undermine the common pretensions of reservation programs is pivotal. Also, Sub-classification programs can face opposition from political groups that either brace or resist changes to reservation systems, leading to implicit detainments and conflicts. Gregarious Pressures Sub-classification might complicate being gregarious pressures within SC ST communities, leading to intra-community conflicts and divisions.nThe process of creating, managing, and streamlining sub-categories adds a significant executive burden on government agencies, challenging fresh coffers and force.
Future ways to be taken
Various states need to call literal demarcation, profitable difference, and gregarious procurators. Finessing political provocations and icing loveliness are overcritical. Influencing the forthcoming Census to collect complete data on SCs and STs, involving sub-group special information. Establish independent data verification processes to conserve credibility and translucency. Outlining clear and existential criteria for sub-classification, finessing private or politically motivated opinions. Prioritizing socio- profitable pointers over bare estate or ethnical confederations. Monitoring the jolt and conforming programs grounded on issues is essential. Icing that advantages reach the intended heirs is a nonstop process. Honor sub-classification as a temporary measure to manipulate literal disadvantages. seat on common socio- profitable evolution and commission of SCs and STs. Gradationally reduce dependence on reservations as thick gregarious and profitable conditions ameliorate.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s recent judgment marks a significant shift in the interpretation of reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). By allowing states to implement sub-classifications within these groups, the Court acknowledges the diverse levels of disadvantage within the SC and ST communities. This decision, overturning the previous stance of treating these groups as homogenous, aims to ensure more effective and equitable distribution of benefits. However, the ruling also underscores the necessity for states to provide concrete evidence and adhere to rigorous criteria when establishing sub-quotas. Balancing these new measures with existing frameworks and addressing potential challenges will be crucial for the successful implementation of this landmark decision.
REFERENCES
- https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/sc-allows-for-sub-classification-of-scs-and-sts
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/supreme-court-allows-sub-groups-within-15-scheduled-caste-quota/articleshow/112205336.cms
- https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/explained-sub-classification-of-sc-st-9489996/lite/
AUTHOR:- PRABHSIMAR SINGH, A STUDENT AT UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LAWS,PURC,PANJAB UNIVERSITY