Background of the Issue

E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2004)

• Andhra Pradesh introduced a system dividing Scheduled Castes (SCs) into four groups (A, B, C, and D) for reservation purposes. The intent was to address differences in advancement levels among SC communities.
• High Court Verdict: The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the law, arguing that sub-classification aimed to provide representation to less advanced SC groups.

Supreme Court Judgment (2004): A five-judge Constitution Bench ruled against sub-classification. It asserted that:

• Article 341 of the Constitution: The list of SCs is notified by the President and cannot be modified except by an act of Parliament.
• Homogeneity of SCs: The Constitution considers SCs as a single homogeneous class, making state-level sub-classification impermissible.

Developments Leading to Larger Bench Consideration

• Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006: Provided 25% reservation for SCs, with sub-quota preferences for specific SC groups (e.g., Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs).
• Haryana Government’s Notification (2006): Divided SCs into two blocks, assigning 50% of the SC quota to each block.
• Tamil Nadu Law (2009): Enacted to provide a sub-quota for Arunthathiyars, a specific subgroup within the SCs.
• Legal Challenges: These laws and notifications faced legal challenges, with High Courts in Punjab, Haryana, and Tamil Nadu questioning their constitutionality based on the 2004 judgment.
• Supreme Court Review (2020): A nine-judge Constitution Bench had previously ruled on Indra Sawhney (1992), which allowed sub-classification for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The 2020 Bench doubted the correctness of the 2004 Chinnaiah ruling, prompting a larger Bench to reassess it.

Supreme Court Judgment (2024)

Overruling the 2004 Judgment:

• Homogeneity Revisited: The seven-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, found that SCs are not a homogeneous class as previously ruled. The earlier judgment''s assumption of uniformity among SCs was incorrect.
• Article 341 Interpretation: Article 341’s role is to identify SCs for general affirmative action, but it does not preclude states from addressing intra-community differences. The states can make special provisions to cater to varying degrees of backwardness within SC communities.
• Sub-Classification Validity: Sub-classification is allowed as long as it is based on "intelligible differentia" (a clear and rational distinction) and serves the purpose of better addressing intra-community disparities. Such classifications must be justified by empirical data and are subject to judicial review.

Impact and Implications

• Encouragement for Targeted Reservation: States can now implement sub-quotas to benefit more marginalized sections within SCs. This approach aims to ensure that the most disadvantaged groups receive adequate representation and benefits.
• Judicial Scrutiny: Sub-classifications are not absolute and must be defensible in court. States must provide evidence of the rationale behind such classifications.

Detailed Examination of Inter-Community Differences

• Historical and Empirical Evidence: Chief Justice Chandrachud’s judgment drew on historical and empirical data to show that there are significant differences among SC communities, including instances where some SC groups face discrimination from others within the same category.
• Adherence to 2004 Doctrine: Justice Trivedi maintained that sub-classification among SCs was impermissible and akin to altering the President''s list under Article 341. She emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the SC list as initially notified.

Creamy Layer Concept

Concept and Current Status

• Application to OBCs: The creamy layer concept, which excludes the more advanced members of OBCs from affirmative action benefits, does not currently apply to SCs.
• Justice B.R. Gavai’s Opinion: Justice Gavai argued that a similar exclusion should be considered for SCs to ensure that more advanced members do not benefit unfairly compared to those in greater need. He highlighted:
• Differences in Access and Resources: Noted the disparity between SC individuals from urban versus rural areas and those from elite versus less privileged educational institutions.
• Equality Principle: Emphasized that equal treatment of all SC members despite their varying levels of advancement undermines the principle of equality.
• Implementation: Despite Justice Gavai’s opinion, there is no direct directive to implement the creamy layer concept for SCs in this case. The issue of creamy layer exclusion did not form part of the case’s central issues and thus was not mandated for implementation.

Conclusion

The 2024 Supreme Court judgment revises the 2004 stance, allowing states to sub-classify Scheduled Castes and set sub-quotas, aiming to address intra-community disparities more effectively. The ruling emphasizes that while Article 341 identifies SCs, states can differentiate within the SC category to ensure that affirmative action is more precisely targeted. The decision reflects an effort to balance constitutional principles with practical considerations of social equity.