SC verdict allowing for Sub-Classification of SCs and STs- Explained Pointwise

The seven-judge bench of the SC headed by the Chief Justice of India, with a 6:1 ruling has allowed for sub-classification of SCs and STs. The ruling has permitted the states to create sub-classifications within the SC and ST categories for the purpose of according wider protections in public employment and education. This verdict overturns the previous 2004 ruling in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, which had prohibited such sub-classifications.

What is the SC Verdict on Sub-Classification of SCs and STs?

1. Permission for Sub-Classification- The Court has ruled that states can create sub-classifications within SCs and STs to better target support for the most disadvantaged groups. This will allow for separate quotas within the existing 15% reservation for SCs. It is aimed at addressing varying levels of backwardness among these communities.

2. Sub-classification on an Empirical Basis- The ruling emphasizes that any sub-classification must be based on empirical data and historical evidence of systemic discrimination, rather than arbitrary or politically motivated reasons. The Court has stressed the need for states to substantiate their classifications with quantifiable data.

3. Extension of Creamy Layer Principle to SCs and STs- The Court has extended the ‘creamy layer‘ principle previously applied to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) (as highlighted in Indra Sawhney Case), to SCs and STs. States must identify and exclude more affluent individuals within these groups from receiving reservation benefits, ensuring that assistance reaches those who are truly disadvantaged.

4. Sub-classification decisions subject to Judicial Review- The SC has highlighted that decisions made by states regarding sub-classification are subject to judicial review to prevent potential misuse for political gain.

5. Generational Limit to availing reservation- The Court noted that reservation benefits should be limited to the first generation of beneficiaries. If any family member has already availed of these benefits and achieved a higher social status, subsequent generations may not qualify for availing reservation.

What are the roots of the case demanding sub-classification of SCs and STs? 

State Government’s Efforts for Sub-classification of SCs and STs

SC and HC intervention and striking down of Sub-classification 

Calls for reassessment

Over the years, various states like Punjab have argued that certain groups within the SC category were underrepresented and required additional support (Davinder Singh v State of Punjab). This led to calls for the Supreme Court to reassess the E.V.Chinnaiah ruling 2004. In 2020, a Constitution Bench acknowledged the need to revisit the 2004 decision.

Judicial Review of the E.V.Chinnaiah and New Ruling- The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on August 1, 2024, by a 6-1 majority, allows states to sub-classify SCs and STs, overturning the precedent set in the E.V. Chinnaiah case. The ruling clarifies that while Article 341 provides a framework for identifying SCs, it does not create a homogenous class devoid of internal differences.

The Court’s decision allows for a nuanced understanding of social backwardness, enabling states to implement specific measures that address the unique challenges faced by different sub-groups.

What is the Significance of the Verdict?

1. Enhanced Social Justice by targeted Reservations- The Court aims to ensure that the most marginalized groups within the SC and ST categories receive appropriate support by allowing sub-classification. This can lead to more effective reservation policies that address the unique challenges faced by different sub-groups, ultimately promoting greater social equity.

2. Constitutional Validation- The verdict asserts that sub-classification does not violate Articles 14 (right to equality) or Article 341 (definition of SCs) of the Constitution. The Court has clarified that states have the constitutional authority to identify different degrees of social backwardness and provide targeted reservations accordingly.

3. Acknowledgement of social reality- The Verdict acknowledges that the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe are very large baskets that contain social groups of different status, based on different traditional occupations. They vary in their degrees of disadvantage and are unequally placed to receive the benefits of reservation.
For ex- According to the recently concluded caste survey of Bihar, out of every 10,000 persons, 124 Dhobis had decent (PG or professional) higher education degrees, while this number was 45 for the Dusadh community and just one for the most disadvantaged Musahar community.

4. Need for Data-Driven Policies- The Court’s verdict has emphasized that any sub-classification must be backed by quantifiable and demonstrable data, preventing arbitrary or politically motivated decisions. This would ensure that any classifications for affirmative actions have to be empirically determined and demonstrated.

5. Precedent for Future Cases- The verdict sets a new legal precedent for administering reservations in India. It opens the door for states to implement sub-classification policies, potentially leading to more effective and equitable reservation strategies in the future.

What are the Challenges in ensuring Sub-Classification?

1. Empirical Data Collection for Sub-classification- Gathering quantifiable and demonstrable data, and conducting comprehensive surveys and studies to collect reliable data on the socio-economic conditions of different sub-castes is a resource-intensive and time-consuming process.

2. Criteria for Sub-Classification- Determining the specific parameters, appropriate criteria and thresholds to measure backwardness, such as educational attainment, income levels, representation in government jobs, and access to basic amenities, is a complex task.

3. Influence of political considerations-  There are concerns that sub-classification criterion can be misused for electoral gains. States can use it as a tool of political expediency.

4. Social Tensions- Sub-classification might exacerbate existing social tensions within SC/ST communities, leading to intra-community conflicts and divisions.

5. Administrative Burden- The process of creating, managing, and updating sub-categories would add a significant administrative burden on government agencies.

What Should be the Way Forward?

1. Concensus Building- Building consensus among various stakeholders, including political parties, community leaders, and civil society organizations, is essential to ensure the successful implementation of sub-classification policies.

2. Effective monitoring mechanisms and grievance redressal systems- States must put in place effective monitoring mechanisms and grievance redressal systems to prevent leakage and ensure that the most disadvantaged sub-groups receive adequate support.

3. Maintaining social harmony- Addressing the concerns of other marginalized communities who may feel left out or threatened by sub-classification is crucial to maintain social harmony and prevent conflicts.

4. Strengthening the administrative and institutional capacity of states- Strengthening the administrative and institutional capacity of states to implement sub-classification policies effectively is essential. This includes training personnel, developing data management systems, and establishing dedicated agencies to oversee the implementation process.

5. Adequate Financial resources- Adequate financial resources must be provided to states for conducting surveys, implementing sub-classification policies, and monitoring their impact is crucial for the success of this initiative