NACDAOR Challenges Supreme Court Verdict on SC-ST Subclassification, Cites Threat to Reservation System

New Delhi- The National Confederation of Dalit and Adivasi Organisations (NACDAOR) has filed a review petition challenging the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the "creamy layer" and subclassification within the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) categories. The organization argues that this decision could potentially undermine the constitutional rights of Dalits and Adivasis, weakening the reservation system designed for their upliftment.

NACDAOR's national chairman, Ashok Bharti, shared his concerns with The Mooknayak, stating that the decision is detrimental to the welfare and development of the SC and ST communities.

He highlighted that the ruling was passed by a 6:1 ratio in a seven-judge bench, which, he noted, lacked adequate representation from the reserved communities. "The terminology used in the judgment is highly objectionable and reflects a negative mindset of the justices towards Dalits and Adivasis," Bharti remarked. He also stressed that the ruling focuses on economic status, but caste-based oppression affects all members of the SC-ST communities, regardless of their financial situation. This approach overlooks the pervasive nature of caste discrimination.

He emphasized that while economic disadvantages are a factor, caste-based oppression affects Dalits and Adivasis more broadly, regardless of economic status.

Bharti pointed out that despite the reservation system, 60% of state and central government job positions are still held by dominant classes, leaving only 40% to be shared among SC, ST, and OBC communities. "It is strange that in the 60% enjoyed by the 'savarnas,' there is no shared space even for minorities. Doesn't that amount to inequality?" he questioned. Bharti said the immediate release of caste-based data on SC/ST/OBC employees in government services is necessary to ensure their accurate representation.

He expressed concern that the Supreme Court's verdict on subclassification could create divisions within the SC-ST communities and allow dominant classes to further encroach upon the reserved quotas, ultimately defeating the purpose of the reservation system. "This would weaken our collective bargaining power and undermine the solidarity necessary for social and economic upliftment", he added.

NACDAOR's review petition requests that the matter be reconsidered by a larger bench, consisting of 9 or 11 judges, with adequate representation from SC, ST, and OBC communities. Bharti also criticized the decision as being based on theoretical conceptions rather than empirical data, facts, and circumstantial evidence. Bharti remains hopeful that their review petition will yield a positive outcome and ensure justice for the marginalized communities.

The Supreme Court Ruling

In August 2024, a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that States have the power to sub-divide Scheduled Castes (SC) into groups so that it can give sub-quotas within the quota for Dalits. The ruling was made in the case Davinder Singh Vs the State of Punjab by the bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud. 

Through sub-categorisation, there could be a provision for the creamy layer criteria within the SCs and STs to allocate quotas in government jobs and educational institutions, the court said. This approach would mean that the more marginalised segments within these communities get adequate representation.

 In the process, the Bench overruled a 2004 judgment by a five-member Constitution Bench that said such sub-classification was impermissible as Parliament alone was empowered to modify the list of SCs notified by the President under Article 341 of the Constitution. The court ruled that: 

Sub-classification is permissible

The court ruled that SCs are not a homogenous group and that sub-classification is permissible to give more weightage to those who have suffered more discrimination.

The court ruled that sub-classification can only be based on a need for wider protections, and that states must provide empirical evidence and a reasonable rationale. The court said that reservation should be limited to the first generation that avails it.