Supreme Court permits sub-classification of SCs and STs for enhanced quota distribution
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK Advertisement New Delhi, August 1: In a majority ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court stated that states…
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, August 1: In a majority ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court stated that states have the authority to create sub-classifications within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of allocating quotas to help the more disadvantaged castes within these categories.
States may further sub-categorize SCs and STs
A seven-judge constitution bench, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, ruled by a 6:1 majority that states may further sub-categorize Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to ensure quotas are provided to the more marginalized castes within these groups.
Alongside CJI Chandrachud, the bench included Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma.
CJI Chandrachud, while overturning the Chinnaiah ruling that deemed sub-classification of Scheduled Castes impermissible, noted that struggles faced by these classes persist even with their representation at the lowest levels.
Also Read- Jharkhand assembly Speaker suspends 18 BJP MLAs after ‘sleep in House’ protests
SC overrules verdict of EV Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh case
The verdict was issued in response to requests to reconsider the 2004 five-judge constitution bench ruling in the case of EV Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. That decision had determined that SCs and STs are considered homogenous groups, and therefore states could not create further sub-classifications to allocate additional quotas for more disadvantaged and weaker castes within these groups.
The bench was considering 23 petitions, including a primary one submitted by the Punjab government, which contested a 2010 ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Justice Trivedi gives dissenting judgement
Justice Bela M Trivedi, in her dissenting opinion, expressed her disagreement with the majority decision.
In her dissenting judgment, Justice Trivedi argued that states lack the authority to sub-classify castes and distribute reserved benefits among Scheduled Castes, as this would interfere with the Presidential notification under Article 341(2).
