New Delhi- In a significant ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court's seven-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, affirmed the ability of states to further sub-classify Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to address intra-group disparities. The bench ruled by a 6:1 majority, marking a pivotal shift in the interpretation of affirmative action.

By permitting states to categorize SCs based on their relative levels of backwardness, the decision aims to ensure that reservations are more effectively targeted at the most disadvantaged groups within the SC community.

This approach seeks to address long-standing inequalities by directing support where it is needed most, thereby enhancing the fairness and impact of reservation policies.

The ruling also emphasizes the importance of using empirical data to justify sub-classification, promoting transparency and accountability in the implementation of affirmative action. Ultimately, this decision is poised to create a more equitable and responsive system, benefiting those who face the greatest barriers to education and employment.

What the Court Decided

Permitting Sub-Classification: The Court ruled that states can sub-classify SCs and STs into different categories based on their relative backwardness. This allows states to allocate reservations more effectively within these groups. For example, a certain percentage of the reservation quota can be specifically targeted at the most disadvantaged sub-groups within the broader SC/ST categories.

Addressing Discrimination: The ruling acknowledges that SCs and STs are not a homogeneous group. It allows states to provide additional benefits to those within these groups who have experienced more severe discrimination. This means that the most marginalized within the SC/ST categories can receive a greater share of the reserved quotas.

Historical and Social Context: The Court emphasized that the historical and social conditions indicate significant disparities within SCs and STs. As a result, sub-classification is necessary to ensure that the benefits of reservations reach those who are most in need.

Empirical Evidence: States must back their sub-classification measures with empirical data, ensuring that these measures are based on concrete evidence rather than political motives. This requirement aims to maintain transparency and accountability in the implementation of affirmative action policies.

Dissenting Opinion: Justice Bela Trivedi was the sole dissenter, arguing that such sub-classifications may undermine the unified approach needed to address systemic discrimination faced by SCs and STs.

Implications of the Ruling

• Enhanced Targeting of Reservations: The decision seeks to enable a more nuanced approach to reservations, potentially improving the effectiveness of affirmative action by directing resources to the most disadvantaged segments within SCs and STs.

• Policy Adjustments: States will need to develop policies and criteria for sub-classification that are grounded in empirical research, ensuring that such measures are justified and transparent.

• Legal Precedents: The ruling overturns the 2004 judgment in EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which had previously restricted such sub-classifications. The new ruling provides a framework for states to tailor their reservation policies more closely to the needs of different groups within SCs and STs.

Background and Origins of the Case

In 1975, the Punjab government divided its 25% reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) into two categories: one for the most backward SC communities (Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh) and another for the rest of the SC communities. This policy aimed to prioritize the most disadvantaged groups within the SC category for education and jobs.

However, in 2004, the Supreme Court struck down a similar policy from Andhra Pradesh, ruling that dividing SCs into sub-categories violated the right to equality. The Court argued that all SCs should be treated as one homogenous group due to their shared historical discrimination and that states couldn’t alter the SC list set by the President under Article 341 of the Constitution.

Following this, the Punjab & Haryana High Court also, in the Dr. Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab case, invalidated the 1975 Punjab notification.

In 2006, after the Punjab & Haryana High Court invalidated the reservation policy dividing SCs, the Punjab government tried to reintroduce it with a new law giving priority to the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities. The High Court struck down this new law in 2010.

Punjab then appealed to the Supreme Court. In 2014, the Court decided to review the earlier 2004 decision on sub-categorization by a five-judge Bench.

In 2020, the five-judge Bench, led by Justice Arun Mishra, agreed that the 2004 ruling needed to be reexamined, acknowledging the need to address the real issues affecting SC reservations.

Ruling and Developments

The Court disagreed with the idea that all Scheduled Castes (SCs) are the same, recognizing that there are inequalities among them. The concept of a "creamy layer," previously used for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), has now been extended to SCs. This means that higher-income individuals within SCs can be excluded from reservations, a principle upheld in the 2018 Jarnail Singh case.

States argue that sub-classification is a way to apply this creamy layer concept by giving priority to the most disadvantaged within the SC category rather than excluding certain castes.

Since the Davinder Singh case was reviewed by a five-judge Bench, a larger seven-judge Bench reexamined the issue, as only a larger Bench can overturn a smaller one’s decision.

This ruling affects various SC sub-groups, including Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs in Punjab, Madigas in Andhra Pradesh, Paswans in Bihar, Jatavs in Uttar Pradesh, and Arundhatiyars in Tamil Nadu.