Supreme Court considers pleas to review judgment upholding States’ right to sub-classify Scheduled Castes

The lead opinion of the Chief Justice and Justice Manoj Misra that it was constitutionally permissible for States to sub-classify groups among Scheduled Castes was backed by four other judges. File.
| Photo Credit: SHIV KUMAR PUSHPAKAR

A seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court examined a series of petitions seeking a review of its August 1 majority judgment declaring that States have the right to sub-classify Scheduled Castes notified in the Presidential List in order to provide them more preferential treatment in public employment and education.

The review exercise was scheduled in the chambers of the seven judges on the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud.

Also read: Why did courts revisit bar on sub-quotas? | Explained

The lead opinion of the Chief Justice and Justice Manoj Misra that it was constitutionally permissible for States to sub-classify groups among Scheduled Castes was backed by four other judges.

Justice B.R. Gavai had observed that it was the duty of a State to give preferential treatment to the backward class of citizens who were not adequately represented.

Justice Bela Trivedi had remained the lone dissenter on the Bench, saying States did not have the power to tinker with the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes.

The review petitions filed later on in August supported the conclusions of Justice Trivedi. They had argued that the President had the exclusive powers to identify the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

“If any community has advanced or ceased to be a part of Scheduled Castes or Tribes, the Parliament has got the exclusive power to include in or exclude from such community from the 1950 Order. The concurrent exercise is not contemplated by the States,” it said.

“The power to deal with the 1950 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order is not available to anyone, the Union government or the State (including State Legislature) except the Parliament. The Indra Sawhney judgment did not deal with the sub-division or sub-classification of SC/ST and it remains limited to the Other Backward Classes,” the review petitioners argued.

The review petitioners also did not agree with the opinions of four judges on the Bench to introduce the creamy layer principle in reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

“Any direction to exclude the creamy layer from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is patently illegal,” they contended.