The Supreme Court on Thursday overruled a 2004 decision by a five-judge bench in EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, which stated that sub-classification was not allowed on the grounds that SC/STs constitute homogenous classes.
Livemint
Updated1 Aug 2024, 11:33 AM IST
Sub-classification of SC-ST permissible to give separate quota for more backwards, says SC overruling 2004 verdict(HT_PRINT)
The Supreme Court on Thursday overruled a 2004 decision by a five-judge bench in EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, which stated that sub-classification was impermissible on the grounds that Shecduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes constitute homogenous classes.
A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court has ruled by majority that sub-classification within the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (SC/STs) is permissible to grant separate quotas for more backwards, according to legal news website, LiveLaw.
Also Read | Centre opposes SC plea for mineral royalty refund, cites ‘multipolar’ impact
The top court clarified that while allowing sub-classification, the state cannot earmark 100 per cent reservation for a sub-class. Also, the state has to justify the sub-classification based on empirical data regarding the inadequacy of representation of the sub-class.
The SC Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma had reserved the judgment on February 8 this year after hearing the matter for three days.
Play
Unmute
Loaded: 2.62%
Fullscreen
CJI Chandrachud said that there are six judgments, all concurring in the case. "The majority has overruled the EV Chinniah judgment of 2004 which held that sub-classification is not permissible, he said. Justice Bela Trivedi, however, dissented.
The 7-judge Constitution bench was considering two aspects. 1) Whether sub-classification with the reserved castes be allowed, and 2) The correctness of the decision in EV Chinnaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that SCs notified under Article 341 formed one homogenous group and could not be sub-categorized further.
Also Read | Rahul’s dig at PM for remark on Mahatma Gandhi: ‘Entire Political Science…’
The Court was reviewing the constitutional validity of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Act, which depends on whether sub-classifications can be made within the Scheduled Castes or Tribes or if they should be treated as homogenous groups.
PROMOTED
Make your voice heard at Cathay’s annual awardsCathay Members’ Choice Awards|
Sponsored
Try the Options Wizard tool now!Interactive Brokers|
Sponsored
Paris Olympics 2024: Boxer Nikhat Zareen’s Olympic campaign ends with shocking loss to China’s Wu Yu | MintLive Mint
免費玩《英雄征戰》Hero Wars|
Sponsored
’Jaati kaise pooch li, Akhilesh ji?: Anurag Thakur shares old video to hit back at SP chief over caste remark | MintLive Mint
脆弱孩子的明天 由你守護World Vision Hong Kong|
Sponsored
萬寧湧入爆買人潮「超強爆髮凝露」生了10倍的頭髮！法之羽|
Sponsored
樂高®無制限宇宙 參加送$50 LEGO 現金券LEGO® x StayFun|
Sponsored
The state of Punjab was represented by Advocate General Gurminder Singh, along with Additional Advocate General Shadan Farasat. Several senior advocates including Kapil Sibal, Gopal Sanakaranarayanan, former Attorney General Venugopal, Siddharth Luthra, Salman Khurshid , Murlidhar also made their submissions from the petitioners' side, LiveLaw said.
The Union government had submitted that it was in favour of the sub-classifications among SCs and STs. Attorney General for India R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared on behalf of the Union, supporting the cause of subclassification in reservations.
Also Read | CJI sees ‘detrimental’ side to menstrual leave petition: ‘Women will be shunned…
In his judgement, CJI Chandrachud referred to historical evidence suggesting that SC is not a homogeneous class. “Sub-classification does not violate the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Also, sub-classification does not violate Article 341(2) of the Constitution. There is nothing in Articles 15 and 16 which prevents the State from sub-classifying a Caste,” he said, according to LiveLaw.