Supreme Court dismisses pleas seeking review of Scheduled Caste sub-classification judgment

Representation Image

The Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of pleas requesting review of its judgment which held that states are empowered constitutionally to make sub-classifications within the Scheduled Caste (SC) category for granting reservation, reported PTI.

According to PTI, a seven-judge bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma said there is no error apparent on the face of the record.

The apex court also rejected the applications for filing the review petitions in open court.

Justice Trivedi, who had written a separate opposing the judgment in the case, was also part of the seven-judge bench which rejected the petitions requesting a review of the majority verdict, PTI reported.

"Having perused the review petitions, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 has been established. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed," the order dated September 24, which was uploaded on Friday, October 4, said.

As per PTI, on August 1, the Supreme Court had ruled that states may constitutionally create socially diverse sub-classifications under the SC category in order to provide reservations for the advancement of socially and educationally less advanced castes.

It, however, made it clear that states have to make sub-classification on the basis of "quantifiable and demonstrable data" of backwardness and representation in government jobs and not on "whims" and as a matter of "political expediency", PTI reported.

A seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud, by a majority of 6:1, set aside the Supreme Court's five-judge bench 2004 verdict in the EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh case which had held that no sub-classification of SCs can be allowed as they are a homogeneous class in themselves.

Except for Justice Trivedi, the other six judges agreed with the findings of CJI.

Justice Trivedi, in her 85-page dissenting judgment, said that only the Parliament can include a caste in the SC list or exclude it, and the states are not empowered to tamper with it. The SCs, she rules, are a "homogeneous class" incapable of being sub-classified further, stated PTI.

Overturning the Chinnaiah order, the CJI addressed the sub-classification of SCs and stated that "substantive equality of opportunity for the backward classes" is the objective of all affirmative action, including sub-classification.

"The state can sub-classify, inter alia, based on inadequate representation of certain castes. However, the state must establish that the inadequacy of representation of a caste/group is because of its backwardness," it said.

The state is tasked with collecting the data on the inadequacy of representation in government jobs because it is used as an indicator of backwardness, it said.

A debate over sub-classification arose after certain states, including Punjab, made laws to sub-classify Scheduled Caste to grant more quota benefits to certain castes, PTI reported.

The Supreme Court had reserved the verdict on February 8 on pleas requesting review of the Chinnaiah judgment, which had ruled all SCs which suffered ostracisation, discrimination and humiliation for centuries represented a homogeneous class incapable of being sub-categorised, PTI reported.

(With inputs from PTI)