HIGHLIGHTS

Landmark Judgment:

• Supreme Court, in a 6:1 majority judgment, upheld that states can sub-classify SCs for preferential treatment in public employment and education.
• Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud stated that sub-categorization is a constitutional requirement for achieving substantive equality if the social positions of constituents are not comparable.

Overruling Previous Verdict:

• The court overruled the 2005 E.V. Chinnaiah judgment which had prohibited further sub-classification of SCs, deeming it an infringement on Parliament’s power under Article 341(2).
• The earlier judgment considered SCs as a homogenous group, barring sub-classification.

Majority Opinion:

• Chief Justice Chandrachud’s view, supported by four other judges, emphasized that SCs are not a uniform group and sub-classification is necessary to address varying degrees of backwardness.
• Sub-classification is permissible under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution if based on empirical data and rational principles.

Creamy Layer Principle:

• Four judges recommended applying the “creamy layer principle” to SCs and STs, similar to the OBC category, to exclude affluent individuals from reservation benefits.
• Justice B.R. Gavai highlighted the need for policies that distinguish between affluent and disadvantaged members within SCs.

Dissenting Opinion:

• Justice Bela Trivedi dissented, arguing that states lack the power to alter the Presidential List of SCs and that the current sub-classification should not be permitted.

Legal and Constitutional Context:

• The ruling followed a 2020 reference regarding the Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars Reservation Act and the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, which had provided preferential quotas to specific SC groups.
• The judgment reaffirmed that states must use empirical data to support sub-classification claims, ensuring it does not interfere with Parliament’s exclusive powers under Article 341(2).

ANALYSIS

Constitutional Implications:

• The ruling reflects a significant shift in interpreting the constitutional provisions related to affirmative action, recognizing the need for nuanced classification within SCs to address varying levels of social and economic backwardness.

Impact on Reservation Policies:

• States now have clearer authority to implement internal quotas among SCs, potentially leading to more targeted and effective affirmative action policies.
• The application of the creamy layer principle may lead to more equitable distribution of reservation benefits, ensuring that the most disadvantaged within SC groups receive appropriate support.

Potential Challenges:

• Implementing the ruling could face logistical and administrative challenges, including the need for accurate data collection and the risk of political manipulation in the sub-classification process.
• The dissenting opinion highlights concerns about state overreach and potential conflicts with national policies, which could lead to legal and political disputes.

Broader Implications:

• The judgment could set a precedent for similar sub-classification within other socially disadvantaged groups, influencing future legal and policy developments in affirmative action.