New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday rejected review petitions challenging its ruling, which permitted the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SC) to allow separate quotas for the more backward communities within the SC categories.
On August 1, a 7-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by 6:1 majority, held that States can identify more backwards among the SC categories and can sub-classify them for giving separate quotas within the quota. Following that several review petitions were filed against the judgment. The Court refused to review the judgment stating that there was no error apparent on the face of it.
"Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 has been established. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed," stated the order passed by the bench in chambers.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the verdict. In her sole dissent, Justice Bela Trivedi held that Scheduled Castes cannot be sub-classified.
Four out of the six judges in the majority made elaborate observations about the need to exclude the "creamy layer" from the Scheduled Castes and said that the Government must take steps to identify them.
The Court clarified that while allowing sub-classification, the State cannot earmark 100% reservation for a sub-class. Also, the State has to justify the sub-classification on the basis of empirical data regarding the inadequacy of representation of the sub-class.
The 7-judge Constitution Bench was considering essentially two aspects: (1) whether sub-classification with the reserved castes be allowed, and (2) the correctness of the decision in E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394, which held that 'Scheduled Castes' (SCs) notified under Article 341 formed one homogenous group and could not be sub-categorized further.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma reserved the judgment on February 8 this year after hearing the matter for three days.
What led to the reference of the issue?
The matter was referred to a 7-judge bench by a 5-judge bench in 2020 in the case State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh. The 5-judge bench observed that the judgment of the coordinate bench in E.V.Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) 1 SCC 394, which held that sub-classification was not permissible, was required to be reconsidered. The referring bench reasoned that 'EV Chinniah' did not correctly apply the decision of Indira Sawhney v. UOI.
The reference took place in a case concerning the validity of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. The provision stipulated that fifty per cent of the vacancies of the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes in direct recruitment shall be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, subject to their availability, by providing first preference from amongst the Scheduled Castes candidates.
In 2010, a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court struck down the provision, relying on EV Chinnaiah judgment. In EV Chinnaiah, the bench of Justices N.Santosh Hegde, S.N.Variava, B.P.Singh, H.K.Sema, S.B.Sinha held that all the castes in the Presidential Order under Article 341(1) of the Constitution formed one class of homogeneous group and the same could not be further subdivided.
Under Article 341(1), the President of India can officially designate certain groups as Scheduled Castes in any State or Union territory. The said designation of SCs for states has to be done in consultation with the Governor and then be publicly notified. The designation can be done amongst the categories of castes, races, tribes, or their sub-groups.
It was further held therein that any such legislation concerning Entry 41 of List II (State Public Services; State Public Service Commission) or Entry 25 of List III ( Education) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
