Source: Indian Express

Introduction

A 7-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI), D Y Chandrachud also comprises Justices B R Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma started hearing the matter on 6th February 2024 referred to it by a 5-judge bench of Supreme Court and reserved judgment on 8th February 2024 regarding sub-classification among Scheduled Castes (SCs). This contentious issue in the case of the State of Punjab and Ors. v. Davinder Singh and Ors. (2024) has stirred debates concerning the equitable distribution of reservation benefits among various SC communities.

What is the Background of the Case?

• 3-Judges Bench:
  • A Bench of 3-Judges consisting of Justices R M Lodha, Kurian Joseph and R F Nariman vide order dated 20^th August 2014 referred the matter to a larger bench for consideration.
  • They opined that the judgment of a 5 ­Judge Bench in E V Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. and Ors., (2005) was required to be revisited in the light of Article 338 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
• 5-Judges Bench:
  • A 5-Judge bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and Aniruddha Bose heard the matter refereed to it by a 3-Judge bench of Supreme Court.
  • The bench said it would be open to the State to provide preferential treatment by fixing reasonable quota out of reserved seats to ensure adequate representation in services. Reservation is a very effective tool for emancipation of the oppressed class.
    • The benefit by and large is not percolating down to the neediest and poorest of the poor.
  • However, the court considered the case a question of public interest and referred the matter to a larger bench.

What is the Case of E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh?

• Link with the Current Issue Before Supreme Court:
  • The debate traces back to the landmark case E V Chinniah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004), where a five-judge Constitution Bench ruled that only the President could designate communities eligible for reservation benefits under Article 341 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
• Initiation:
  • The validity of Andhra Pradesh SCs (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 was challenged before the HC of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad which came to be dismissed by a five Judge Bench and hence an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court.
• Major Issue Involved:
  • Whether the impugned enactment creates sub-classification or micro classification of Scheduled Castes so as to violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
• Reliance on Indra Sawhney Judgment:
  • It was argued in the case that that further classification of the backward class is permissible in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors. (1992), the principles laid down therein were applicable even to the Scheduled Castes.
• Verdict:
  • The Bench contended that sub-classification within SCs would violate the right to equality enshrined in the Constitution.
  • The bench also observed that in Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1992) Supreme Court observed on page 725 that the discussion of creamy layer is confined to other backward classes only and has no relevance in the case of SC and ST.
  • The court said that by the impugned legislation, the State has sought to re-group the homogeneous group specified in Presidential Notification for the purposes of reservation and appointments.
  • It would be tantamount discrimination in reverse and would attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

How Reinterpretation led to Legal Challenges?

• Despite the E V Chinnaiah ruling, some states have contested its premise, arguing that they possess the authority to ensure equitable distribution of reservation benefits.
• Punjab's 1975 notification, dividing SC reservations into two categories, and subsequent legal battles exemplify the complex interplay between state policies and judicial interpretations.

What is the Sub-Classification Debate?

• The crux of the debate revolves around whether sub-classification is necessary to address the underrepresentation of certain SC communities.
• Proponents argue that sub-classification, akin to the 'creamy layer' concept, would ensure that the most disadvantaged groups receive preferential treatment.
• However, opponents contend that such categorization undermines the fundamental principle of equality among SCs.

What are the Legal Arguments?

• Advocates supporting sub-classification emphasize the constitutional provision allowing states to provide reservations for backward classes not adequately represented in state services.
• They argue that Article 16(4) does not mandate equal treatment but rather aims for adequate representation.
• Opponents assert that all communities listed as SCs share the historical burden of untouchability.

Conclusion

As the Constitution Bench deliberates, it confronts profound questions regarding the interpretation of constitutional provisions and the balance between affirmative action and equal treatment. The outcome will not only shape reservation policies but also reflect India's commitment to social justice and inclusivity in the 21st century.