Supreme Court Approves Sub-Quota Within SC-ST Quota, Grants States Right to Sub-Categorize
The Supreme Court has approved sub-quotas for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). The court stated that the quota does not contradict the principle of equality. A bench of seven Supreme Court judges mentioned that state governments can create sub-categories within SCs and STs, allowing the benefits of reservations to reach the original and most needy groups. The decision was made with a 6-1 majority.
Quota Within Quota
The Supreme Court stated that the quota within quota will be based on reasonable distinctions. States cannot act according to their own will on this matter. Additionally, the actions of the states will be subject to judicial review. The court also overturned the 2004 decision in the EV Chinnaiah case, where a five-judge Supreme Court bench had ruled that sub-categories within SC/STs could not be created. The current bench set aside this previous decision.
Addressing Ground Realities
The court noted that despite reservations, lower caste individuals still struggle to leave their traditional occupations. Justice Bhushan R. Gavai, quoting a speech by B.R. Ambedkar on the need for social democracy, emphasized that it is the state’s duty to prioritize backward communities. He pointed out that only a few people from SC/ST communities are benefiting from reservations, while ground realities show that some sections within these communities have faced oppression for centuries.
Rationale for Sub-Categories
Justice Gavai explained that sub-categorization is based on the fact that some groups within a larger category face more discrimination. He read a statement from Ambedkar, who mentioned that history shows that when morality confronts the economy, the economy wins.
Supreme Court’s Majority Decision
The Supreme Court, with a 6-1 majority, stated that it believes sub-categorization is permissible. However, Justice Bela M. Trivedi dissented on this matter.
What Did the 2004 Decision Say?
In the 2004 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that states do not have the authority to create sub-categories within SC and ST for reservations. The main issue before the Supreme Court again was whether sub-categories (quota within quota) can be created within SC and ST categories. The court now had to decide if sub-categories could be created within SC/ST reservations and if state legislatures have the authority to create quotas within quotas.
The Entire Matter Explained
In 1975, the Punjab government introduced a reservation policy by dividing the policy into two categories for SCs: one for Valmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, and another for the rest of the SC category. This rule was in effect for 30 years. In 2006, the matter reached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in the EV Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh case was cited. Punjab’s policy was struck down. The Chinnaiah decision stated that sub-categories within the SC category are not allowed as it violates the right to equality.
Later, in 2006, the Punjab government passed a new law to reintroduce quotas for Valmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, which was again challenged in the High Court in 2010. The High Court also struck down this policy. The matter reached the Supreme Court, where Punjab argued that under the 1992 Supreme Court decision in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, sub-categories within Other Backward Classes (OBCs) were allowed, and the same should be permitted within SCs as well.
In 2020, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court observed that the EV Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh decision should be reconsidered by a larger bench, which believed that sub-categories within the SC category were not allowed. Subsequently, a bench of seven judges, led by the Chief Justice of India, was constituted, which heard arguments for three days in January 2024 and then reserved its decision.
