Supreme Court Judgment on Sub-classification of Scheduled Castes

In: Current Affairs By: Admin 0 Comments

Context

A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, delivered a landmark 6:1 majority judgment.
The judgment allows States to sub-classify Scheduled Castes (SCs) listed in the Presidential List to provide more preferential treatment in public employment and education.

Key Points:

Sub-classification of SCs:
- The judgment upholds the States’ right to sub-classify SCs to ensure more preferential treatment.
- Chief Justice Chandrachud referred to the Indra Sawhney case, where it was constitutional to classify backward classes into “backward” and “more backward”.
Principle of Sub-classification:
- Sub-classification is deemed a constitutional requirement to secure substantive equality.
- It is applicable if the social positions within SCs are not comparable.
- Sub-categorization within a class aims to address the inequality among SCs.
Creamy Layer Principle:
- Four out of seven judges on the Bench recommended the extension of the creamy layer principle to SCs and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
- The principle seeks to exclude affluent individuals or families from reservation benefits to make room for the underprivileged within these classes.
- Justice B.R. Gavai highlighted the necessity of identifying the creamy layer within SCs and STs to achieve real equality.
Differing Opinions:
- Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Misra, along with four other judges, supported the constitutional permissibility of sub-classifying SCs.
- Justice Bela Trivedi dissented, stating that States lack the power to alter the Presidential List of SCs.
Legal Foundation:
- The power to sub-classify SCs for affirmative action, including reservations, is traced to Articles 15(4) and 16(5) of the Constitution.
- Article 15(4) addresses prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, etc.
- Article 16(5) ensures equal opportunity in public employment.
Concerns and Safeguards:
- The court acknowledged concerns about potential political manipulation to expand vote banks.
- Despite these concerns, the constitutional need to acknowledge and address inter se inequality among SCs was emphasized.

Impact and Implications

Public Employment and Education:
- Enhanced affirmative action for the most disadvantaged groups within the SC category.
- Greater representation and opportunities for underprivileged segments within SCs.
Policy Evolution:
- Need for the government to develop policies to identify and exclude the creamy layer within SCs and STs.
- Aim to ensure that benefits of reservation reach the truly needy and underprivileged.
Legal and Constitutional Discourse:
- Reinforces the principles of substantive equality and affirmative action.
- Sets a precedent for future cases related to classification and reservation policies.

Important Articles and Cases

Articles:
- Article 15(4): Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
- Article 16(5): Equal opportunity in public employment.
Case:
- Indra Sawhney Case: Recognized the constitutional validity of sub-classifying backward classes.

Preparation Tips

Prelims Focus:
- Key constitutional articles (15(4), 16(5)).
- Understanding the principle of creamy layer and its implications.
- Significant judgments like Indra Sawhney case.
Mains Focus:
- Analyze the impact of sub-classification on social justice and equality.
- Discuss the balance between affirmative action and potential political misuse.
- Evaluate the recommendations for extending the creamy layer principle to SCs and STs.