CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SUB-CLASSIFICATION VERDICT

On dated August 1st 2024, the seven judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered its
verdict on the issue of sub-classification within the scheduled castes with the 6:1
majority. Wherein the majority judgment was delivered by the Chief Justice and 6 other
honorable judges while the dissent judgment was delivered by the Honorable Justice Bela
M. Trivedi.
The issues
The issues before the 7-Judge bench in the present case were-
a. Whether sub-classification within reserved categories essential?
b. Whether Scheduled Castes a uniform category?
c. Whether the states have the authority to establish sub-categories within reserved
categories?
d. Whether the five-judge Bench ruling in E.V. Chinnaiah (2004) accurate?
e. Whether a caste listed in the Presidential List be considered a backward class
under Article 16(4)?
The judgment
Majority judgment (6-Judges)
Honorable the Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, in his judgment authored with Justice
Misra, acknowledged historical evidence indicating that scheduled castes are not a
homogeneous group. He opined that sub-classifying these castes does not violate the
equality principle enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, nor does it contravene
Article 341(2). Chandrachud J. emphasized that Articles 15 and 16 do not restrict the
State from creating sub-categories within scheduled castes, provided such classifications
are supported by quantifiable and demonstrable data showing under-representation.
He emphasized that the State's decisions on sub-classification must be based on objective
criteria and are subject to judicial review, cautioning against arbitrary or politically
motivated actions.
Honorable Justice BR Gavai, concurring with the judgment, emphasized the State's
obligation to prioritize more backward communities within the scheduled castes and
tribes. He highlighted that only a small fraction of these groups benefit from reservations,
noting the enduring oppression faced by certain sub-groups over centuries.
Justice Gavai criticized the understanding in the EV Chinnaiah judgment that linked
reservations solely to Article 341, clarifying that Article 341 is primarily for caste
identification, not reservation eligibility.
Regarding the creamy layer concept, Justice Gavai advocated applying it to scheduled
castes and tribes, asserting that excluding affluent individuals from reservation benefits is
essential for achieving true equality.
Justices Vikram Nath and Pankaj Mithal J. echoed this sentiment, suggesting that the
creamy layer principle, akin to its application in OBC reservations, should also extend to
scheduled castes and tribes. Justice Mithal additionally proposed limiting reservation
benefits to one generation, arguing that subsequent generations who have achieved higher
status through reservations should not continue to receive these benefits.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma supported these views, emphasizing the need for equitable
policies within reservation frameworks.
Dissent judgment (1-judge)
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Trivedi opined that the list of Scheduled Castes
designated by the President under Article 341 cannot be modified by individual States.
Changes to this list, including inclusion or exclusion of castes, can only be made through
legislation enacted by Parliament. Justice Trivedi cautioned that any attempt at sub-
classification would effectively tamper with the Presidential list, which she believed was
intended to prevent political influences from influencing the SC-ST categorization.
She emphasized the importance of adhering to a strict and literal interpretation of the law.
Justice Trivedi also warned against granting preferential treatment to specific sub-groups
within the Presidential list, arguing that this would unjustly deprive other groups within
the same category of their rightful benefits.
According to her, in the absence of authority from the executive or legislative branches,
States lack the jurisdiction to sub-classify castes and allocate benefits reserved for all
Scheduled Castes. Allowing States to do so, she contended, would amount to an improper
exercise of power.
Analysis
The whole judgment primary focused on the determining the procedure of sub-
classification in the Scheduled castes. In accordance to Article 366 Clause 24 of the
Constitution of India, Scheduled castes means- ‘such castes, races or tribes or parts of or
groups within such castes, races or tribes as are deemed under Article 341 to be the
Scheduled Castes for the purposes of the Constitution’.
Article 341 lays down the procedure for specifying and classifying Scheduled castes. It
reads, that the power to specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within
such castes, races or tribes is constitutionally vested in the President of India who may
with respect to any state or Union territory, and where it is a state after consultation with
the Governor, specify by ‘public notification’ 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. Further the Clause 2 to the same Article provides an unique power that it shall be
the prerogative of the Parliament which may by law ‘include of exclude’ from the list of
Scheduled Castes specified in notification issued under clause 1 castes, races or tribes or
parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes, subject only to no variation in the
inclusion or exclusion list by subsequent notification.
Of Majority Judgment
Having regard to the above analysis of the position of the Constitution, the majority
judgment while giving liberal interpretation to the above procedure of specification based
its judgment on the premises that Scheduled caste is not a caste in itself, but a notified
caste held that-
a. Since the Parliament and president, in the former case for inclusion and exclusion
and in the latter for specification are only vested with the powers to do the desired,
the sates are not barred from doing sub-classification within the scheduled castes.
b. The words ‘inclusion’ and ‘exclusion’ and ‘specification’ cannot be read literally
so to bar the process of sub-classification in the schedules castes, because for the
latter, the social stigma of under representation still exists.
Of Dissent Judgment
Expressing the dissent to the majority view the judgment is based on the premises
that-
a. Liberal interpretation cannot be given to the provisions of the Constitution by the
Courts, especially in such cases where the intention of the Constitutional framers
and essence of the provision does not reflect the otherwise.
b. Sub-classification in scheduled castes in literal mode of interpretation would
mean, ‘inclusion’ and ‘exclusion’ and ‘specification’ and which again on the
literal interpretation of the Constitutional provision, in the present case, the power
is which is only vested with the Parliament in the former procedure and in the
President in the latter procedure.
Conclusion
I subscribe to the observation made by Honorable Justice B.R Gavai that ‘Political
democracy stands in half way in absence of social democracy’. The majority judgment
gave liberal interpretation to said provision holding that- Sub-classification based on
empirical data does not mean inclusion’ and ‘exclusion’ and ‘specification’, but only sub
classification within the same heterogeneous groups. While, the dissent view is the literal
interpretation of the provision. Weather literal interpretation or Liberal interpretation
must be given to the provisions of the Constitution, this question is been thrown by the
Honorable Apex Court through this judgment the answer to which the prospective
debates have to answer.
I respectfully do not subscribe to the approach which the majority judgment has taken in
the said judgment in the background of achieving Social and economic justice. But I do
respectfully agree with the opinion rendered by the majority judges that-
“State must evolve a policy to identify creamy layer among the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes category and exclude them from fold of affirmative action. In my view,
this is the only way to achieve real equality as enshrined in the Constitution."1

1
Justice B.R Gavai opinion in the matter State of State of Punjab and ors. Vs. Devender Singh and Ors. C.A.
2317/2011