Sub-Classification Within Reserved Categories | Judgement Pronouncement: Supreme Court upholds sub-classification in 6:1 majority

CJI Chandrachud: The Presidential List of Scheduled Castes does not create a deeming fiction

The Chief commenced the pronouncement by declaring that “sub-classification of the Scheduled Caste for the purposes of reservation is permissible.” He summarised the key questions in the case as follows: 

1. Whether sub-classification of a reserved class is permissible under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution
2. Whether the Scheduled Caste constitutes a homogenous or a heterogeneous group
3. Whether Article 341 creates a homogeneous class of a deeming fiction and 
4. Whether there are limits on the scope of sub-classification 

The Chief reasoned that Article 14 of the Constitution provides for sub-classification of a class which is not “similarly situated for the purpose of the law.” 

Chief Justice Chandrachud also held that the Scheduled Caste caste categories were not a homogenous group as each of them faced varying degrees of backwardness. 

Article 341 states that the President may “public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.” 

Respondents had argued that the use of the word “deemed” in Article 341 entailed that the Scheduled Caste category was a homogeneous, legal group in itself—once notified by the President, they became a “deemed” legal group or a legal fiction. 

The Chief held that the use of the word “deemed” in Article 341 does not create a deeming fiction. The word “deemed” used in the Article does not create a separate legal fiction of Scheduled Castes that are at par with each other. 

He went on to say that, the Purpose of Article 341 was the identification of Scheduled Castes to demarcate them from other castes which are not included in the List, it was not an indication of a homogenous class which could not be further classified. 

During the hearing, the respondents had argued that creating sub-classifications would amount to tinkering with the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes notified under Article 341 (1) and hinder the President’s power to notify the Scheduled Castes. The Chief held that sub-classification does not violate Parliament’s power under Article 341(2), as no new castes are included in or excluded from the Presidential List of 1950. 

While upholding the states’ powers to create sub-classifications, the Chief cautioned that the basis for the sub categorisation must not be mere whim or political gain. Instead, sub-classifications must be based on quantifiable and demonstrable data. He also clarified that the states’ decision will be subject to judicial review.

Justice Gavai: State is duty bound to give preferential treatment to backward classes

Justice Gavai agreed with the Chief that sub-classification was necessary to address the varying degrees of discrimination faced by different castes within the group. He also agreed that the decision in Chinnaiah was incorrect as it was based on the understanding the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes under Article 341 provided for reservation. Instead, he stated that it was only a means to identify the various scheduled castes, reservations within the groups depended on the varying degrees of discrimination and opportunity faced by the groups within the group. 

He observed that the state was duty-bound to give preferential treatment to backward classes who have not been given adequate representation. While discharging this duty, if it was found that only some enjoy the benefits, then states may give added preferential treatment to the others.

Further, Justice Gavai added that the creamy layer rule established in Indira Sawhney v Union of India (1992) to exclude the economically advantaged groups within the Other Backward Class group must extend to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe groups. By this he means that those within scheduled caste categories who have unduly reaped the benefits of reservation must be excluded from the reservation under the Scheduled Caste group. 

He however clarified that the criteria applied to identify the creamy layer for Scheduled Castes must be different from the criteria applied to identify the creamy layer in Other Backward Classes. 

Justice Nath agreed with both the Chief and Justice Gavai in his opinion and Justices Mithal and Sharma also briefly read from their separate but concurring opinions. 

Justice Trivedi: Scheduled Castes are a homogenous group

Justice Trivedi adopted the opposite view of the majority on all fronts. At the outset, she held that the three-judge bench’s reference of the Chinnaiah judgement to a seven-judge bench was “inappropriate and not in consonance with the doctrines of precedent and stare decisis” as it did not adequately justify why the reasoning in Chinnaiah was inaccurate. Given this, she stated that the principles of precedent and stare decisis applied and the decision was binding on the Court. 

Further, she held that even though different castes faced varying degrees of discrimination historically, once they were included in the Presidential List and notified by the President under Article 341, they became a homogenous group. Therefore, creating sub-classifications within this group was impermissible. 

Moreover, she held that states did not have the legislative power to create sub-classifications as neither the State List, nor the Concurrent Lists empowered them to do so.

(This report was last updated at 2:38 pm on 1 August 2024.)