The Supreme Court has rejected petitions seeking a review of its Constitution Bench judgment that granted states the authority to sub-classify Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCs/STs). The decision was handed down by a seven-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, dismissing the review pleas.
“The review petitions are dismissed. 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,” said the court.
The petitions were filed to contest the August 1 judgment, where the court, in a 6:1 majority, ruled that sub-classification within SC/ST reservations is constitutionally permissible. This landmark judgment overturned earlier rulings, such as the EV Chinnaiah case, which had declared sub-classification of SCs and STs impermissible due to their characterization as homogenous groups.
While six judges concurred with the majority opinion, Justice Bela M Trivedi dissented, arguing that sub-classification within SCs and STs was not warranted. In contrast, CJI Chandrachud and Justice Manoj Misra, in their judgment, emphasized that Article 14 of the Constitution allows for the sub-classification of groups not similarly situated under the law.
The judgment also highlighted the need to identify the “creamy layer” within SC/ST groups, with four of the seven judges suggesting that individuals who are economically or socially advanced should be excluded from the benefits of affirmative action. Justice BR Gavai notably called for the development of a state policy to address this issue.
Furthermore, the court underlined that any exercise of power to sub-classify under Article 16(4) of the Constitution must be based on quantifiable data regarding the inadequacy of representation of certain sub-categories within state services.
The court clarified that while sub-categorization of castes is allowed, it rejected the notion that reservations could be allocated for each individual caste separately. It stressed that castes facing comparable levels of social backwardness should be grouped together for reservation purposes, maintaining that Article 14 permits such classifications if the groups are not homogenous.
The bench was examining the constitutional validity of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Act, which pertains to the possibility of sub-classifying reserved communities like SCs and STs.
