The Supreme Court has dismissed a series of pleas that sought a review of its earlier judgment affirming the constitutional authority of states to sub-classify Scheduled Castes (SCs) for reservation purposes. The seven-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, found no substantial errors to warrant a review of the decision.
This judgment upholds the August 1 ruling that states can create sub-categories within the SCs to address varying degrees of social and educational backwardness among different castes. The court emphasized that any state-driven sub-classification must be based on “quantifiable and demonstrable data” regarding backwardness and representation in government employment, rather than arbitrary political considerations.
The ruling effectively overturns the 2004 verdict in the EV Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh case, which had prohibited such sub-classifications by asserting that SCs formed a homogeneous group. The majority decision from the bench contended that this earlier view overlooked the nuanced social heterogeneity within the SCs, potentially leaving more marginalized groups within the caste category without adequate upliftment.
However, Justice Bela Trivedi, providing a dissenting opinion, argued that only Parliament holds the power to modify the SC list and that the states lack the jurisdiction to sub-divide these castes. She maintained that SCs represent a uniform class that should not be further segmented.
The core of the Supreme Court’s majority opinion is that affirmative action, including caste sub-classification, aims to ensure substantive equality of opportunity for all backward classes. It asserts that states are permitted to sub-categorize SCs based on proven inadequacies in representation which reflect their ongoing backwardness.
