New Delhi: The Supreme Court’s ruling on August 1, 2024, marks a pivotal shift in the discourse on reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in India. The seven-judge Constitution Bench, chaired by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, has permitted the sub-classification within SCs and STs for reservations, a significant departure from the previously established principle of treating these groups as homogeneous entities. This ruling recognizes that some communities within these categories are significantly underrepresented despite existing reservation policies, thereby enabling targeted protection for these disadvantaged groups. Justice Bela Trivedi’s dissenting opinion highlights the complexities and differing perspectives on this issue.
Historically, the 2004 case of E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh had ruled that Scheduled Castes should be considered a single, homogeneous group for reservation purposes, rendering sub-classification unconstitutional. This decision was based on the need to ensure equality of treatment among all SCs. Punjab’s attempts to implement sub-classification in the 1970s and early 2000s faced legal challenges and were eventually invalidated, reinforcing the Chinnaiah principle. However, the 2014 case of Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab led to a review of the Chinnaiah decision, with the 2020 ruling acknowledging that SCs are not a homogeneous group and warranting reconsideration of the previous ruling.
The recent Supreme Court ruling allows states to sub-classify SCs and STs, providing flexibility to target reservations more effectively at the most disadvantaged groups within these categories. This could significantly impact various communities, such as the Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs in Punjab, Madiga in Andhra Pradesh, Paswans in Bihar, and Jatavs in Uttar Pradesh, by offering them more tailored support. The ruling interacts with constitutional provisions, including Article 341, which deals with the presidential list of SCs, and Article 16(4), which covers reservations in public employment. It suggests a more nuanced interpretation of these provisions, acknowledging internal disparities within SCs and STs.
As states adapt to this new framework, the ruling is expected to lead to more effective reservation policies and greater support for the most disadvantaged groups. However, it is likely to provoke further legal and policy debates as its implementation progresses, ensuring that the principles of equality and justice are upheld.
