Unconstitutional! Backward Classes Lawyers' Association in MP Questions SC-ST Sub-Categorization Decision

Bhopal- The Backward Classes Lawyers' Association of Madhya Pradesh has questioned the Supreme Court's decision to permit sub-categorization within SC and ST categories. They have raised concerns about the appointment of judges and the collegium system.

In an open letter, the Association asked whether the judiciary has the constitutional authority to make laws, and questioned if judges, appointed through what they view as an unconstitutional process, should decide the fate of 85% of the population.

The Association has also attributed the violence in the Manipur SC/ST Act case to court decisions. The letter claims that the court’s decisions over the past 20 years have led to the country’s largest violence.

The letter asserts that Dr. Ambedkar unified the scattered Scheduled Castes under one category to grant them rights, and questions whether the Supreme Court’s decision is contributing to their division. Social organizations across the country have criticized the court’s decision, expressing concerns that it may be leading the constitution towards dissolution.

The Association argues that the judiciary is encroaching on the legislative domain, making decisions detrimental to the interests of the backward classes, despite having only a 3% representation in the judiciary. They question what the Supreme Court aims to prove by categorizing society and suggest that categorization should first occur within the Supreme Court itself.

What is the Supreme Court's Decision?

On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled on the validity of sub-categorization within SC/ST categories. The Court allowed states to implement sub-categorization within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The seven-judge bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, decided that sub-categorization within SC and ST groups is permissible.

The seven-judge bench, which included Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Justice Bela M Trivedi, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Mishra, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, concluded with six judges in agreement, while Justice Bela M Trivedi dissented.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud cited evidence in the decision, stating that Scheduled Castes are not a homogeneous group, and that sub-categorization does not violate the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court also found that sub-categorization does not contravene Article 341(2) and that Articles 15 and 16 do not prohibit states from sub-categorizing any caste.

The Court noted that Scheduled Castes are not a uniform group and that the government can sub-categorize them to provide more benefits to those suffering the most discrimination, based on empirical data regarding their representation in government jobs and educational institutions. This should not be based on the government's discretion.

Previously, the Punjab government had reserved 50% of seats within the SC category for 'Valmiki' and 'Mazhabhi Sikh.' A 2004 Supreme Court decision had prohibited this, which was later upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Punjab government and others appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. In 2020, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court affirmed that such measures were necessary to benefit the disadvantaged. The case was subsequently sent to the seven-judge bench after different decisions by various benches.