Is this an end to reservation for scheduled castes?

A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, on Friday, upheld the validity of sub-classifications within Scheduled Caste categories by a 6:1 majority, overturning the five-judge bench decision in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004).

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The lead opinion was written by Chief Justice Chandrachud for himself and Justice Manoj Misra. There were separate concurring opinions by Justices B.R. Gavai and Pankaj Mithal, though the latter joined the final opinion of the Chief and Justice Gavai. Justice Vikram Nath and S.C. Sharma joined the final opinion of the Chief and Justice Gavai. Justice Bela Trivedi wrote a dissenting opinion.

The majority view was that the Scheduled Caste category is not homogeneous since the castes included in Article 341 of the Constitution suffer a different degree of backwardness or discrimination. The apex court held that the creation of sub-classification does not erode the Presidential power in notifying SC List under Article 341.

“Article 14 permits subclassification inside a class, which is not treated as ‘similarly situated for the purpose of the law’,” Chief Justice Chandrachud argued. “The Scheduled Caste categories are not homogeneous and thus each caste inside the group suffers from backwardness in different degrees.”.

Article 341 provides that the President shall notify, by public notification, the castes, races, tribes, or parts or groups thereof which are to be treated as Scheduled Castes for the purposes of the Constitution in relation to a particular State or Union territory. It was therefore submitted before the respondents that this use of the word “deemed” indicated that Scheduled Caste was a homogeneous legal group. However, Chief Justice Chandrachud has held that the word “deemed” does not create any legal fiction of homogeneous Scheduled Castes; it only serves to identify them for the purpose of demarcation from other castes.

It was further submitted by the respondents that sub-classifications would encroach upon the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes notified under Article 341(1) and hinder the power of the President to notify Scheduled Castes. The Chief Justice explained that sub-classification does not infringe the Parliament’s power under Article 341(2), since no new castes are added or deleted from the Presidential List of 1950.

He further warned that such sub-classification must be based on quantifiable and demonstrable data, not on any whim or for political gain. States’ decisions on such sub-classifications would be open to judicial review, he said.

Justice B.R. Gavai supported Chief Justice Chandrachud and mentioned that there is a need for sub-classification because different castes within the Scheduled Caste category suffer from varying degrees of discrimination. He submitted that the Chinnaiah judgment was erroneous as it based itself on the incorrect assumption that the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes provided for reservations. Actually, he explained, the list merely identifies sundry Scheduled Castes and reservations within the group, which are based on the different degrees of discrimination and opportunities available to the different castes.

Justice Gavai also observed that the State cannot escape the mandate of giving preferential treatment to backward classes which are inadequately represented. He noted that if it is found that the benefits of reservation are confined only to some castes within the Scheduled Caste category, the State may give additional preferential treatment to other castes within the group.

Thus, the judgment just mentioned strongly reiterates that the Supreme Court holds in high esteem the discretionary power of the states to create sub-classifications within the Scheduled Caste category, so that justice and equality can be meted out to all citizens, as long as such classification is upon solid evidence and data.