follow us:
A seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court has delivered a landmark verdict approving the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) to ensure more effective reservation in jobs and education for the more marginalized groups within these categories. This significant decision, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, was passed with a 6:1 majority.
A seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court has delivered a landmark verdict approving the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) to ensure more effective reservation in jobs and education for the more marginalized groups within these categories. This significant decision, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, was passed with a 6:1 majority. Justice Bela Trivedi dissented from the majority opinion. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Chandrachud, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Misra, and Justice Satish Chandra Mishra, overruled the 2004 judgment in the case of EV Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. The 2004 verdict had previously restricted the ability to sub-classify within SC and ST categories. The current ruling marks a major shift in how reservations can be structured to address varying degrees of backwardness within these groups.
During the proceedings, the Centre expressed support for the sub-classification of SC and ST communities. Chief Justice Chandrachud clarified that there is a distinction between “sub-classification” and “sub-categorization.” He emphasized that states may need to sub-categorize reserved communities to ensure that benefits reach the most disadvantaged within these groups. He noted that Article 14 of the Constitution permits sub-classification, pointing out that historical evidence shows that the depressed classes were never a homogenous group. Justice BR Gavai referenced Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s 1949 speech on the necessity of social democracy to complement political democracy. He argued that the hardships faced by different SC communities are distinct and that the EV Chinnaiah decision had been wrongly decided. He rejected the notion that sub-classification could be misused for political gain, affirming that the aim is to achieve true equality.
Justice Trivedi, in her dissent, criticized the three-judge bench’s decision to refer the matter to a larger bench without providing reasons. She argued that the lack of reasoning undermines the doctrine of precedents, which is a fundamental aspect of the legal system. She contended that revisiting the EV Chinnaiah judgment after 15 years without adequate justification was procedurally flawed. This ruling allows for a more nuanced approach to reservations, aiming to better address the specific needs of the most disadvantaged groups within the SC and ST categories.
