In its recent judgment, Supreme Court gave the decision in favour of sub-classification of castes in reservation matters. In his judgment, while considering the issue of Sub-Classification of Castes, Justice BR Gavai wrote-
Giving preferential treatment will not amount tinkering with Presidential List
I find that, as has been observed by this Court in various judgments, it is the duty of the State to give preferential treatment to the backward class of citizens who are not adequately represented. If the State while discharging that duty finds that certain categories within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not adequately represented and only the people belonging to few of the categories are enjoying the entire benefit reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, can the State be denied its right to give more preferential treatment for such categories?
In my view, the answer would be in the negative, since the same would not amount to tinkering with the Presidential List.
No doubt that if the State decides to provide 100% of the reservation for Scheduled Castes to one or more categories enlisted in the Presidential List in that State to the exclusion of some categories, it may amount to tinkering with that list because, in effect, it would amount to denial of benefit of reservation to those Scheduled Caste categories which have been excluded. In my view, that would, in effect, amount to deletion of the said categories from the Presidential List notified under Article 341 of the Constitution, which power is exclusively reserved with Parliament, in my opinion, such an exercise would not be permissible.
Observations made by Sawant, J. in Indra Sawhney
In this respect, I may take support from the observations made by Sawant, J. in Indra Sawhney. He held that if the reservation is provided only for the more or most backward classes, then the people belonging to higher echelons would grab the open seats whereas the people from more or most backward classes would eat up the entire reservation, leaving the other backward classes high and dry.
He therefore held that the sub-classification of backward classes would be permissible provide the reserved seats are available for backward classes as well as more or most backward classes.
I am therefore of the considered view that merely because more preferential treatment is provided to the more backward or more inadequately represented among the Scheduled Castes, it would not amount to tinkering with the Presidential List. In my view, the same would be permissible in view of the law laid down by the 9-Judge Bench in the case of Indra Sawhney.
Some classes should be preferred than others
The ground realities cannot be denied. Even among the Scheduled Castes, there are some categories who have received more inhuman treatment for centuries and generations as compared to the other categories. The hardships and the backwardness which these categories have suffered historically would differ from category to category. In my view, therefore, merely because they are part of a single or a combined Presidential List, it cannot be said that they form part of a homogeneous group. I therefore have no hesitation in holding that E.V. Chinnaiah has been wrongly decided.
The concept of sub-classification was sought to be attacked on the ground that this would lead to giving reservation for political reasons. It was argued that a political party in power to gain political advantage may provide special treatment to a particular class in the list of Scheduled Castes. I see no merit in the argument.
Dr. Ambedkar had foreseen such a difficulty. In his speech in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said that ‘backward community” will have to be left to be determined by each local government. On a query by Shri T.T. Krishnamachari, as to whether this rule will be justiciable, he observed that it would be a justiciable matter.
He stated that if the local Government included in this category of reservations such a large number of seats, one could very well go to the Federal Court and the Supreme Court and say that the reservation is of such magnitude that the rule regarding equality of opportunity has been destroyed and the court will then come to the conclusion whether the local Government or the State Government has acted in a reasonable and prudent manner.
Court may decide whether the classification is reasonable or not
Various judicial pronouncements referred to hereinabove have emphasized that a reasonable classification is implicit in the trinity of Articles 14 to 16. Therefore, if somebody approaches the Court, the Court can always examine as to whether such a classification is reasonable or not.
For a classification to be reasonable, it will have to be established that any group or sub-group carved out in the larger group is significantly different than the larger group and that the classification has a nexus with the object to be achieved.
In a case, like the present one, if a classification is made, it will have to be established that the group carved out from the larger group is more disadvantageous and not adequately represented. The result of classification would be to provide more preferential treatment to this more disadvantageous and less represented group. The ultimate object would be to achieve real equality among all the sub-groups in the larger group.
In any case, as has been held by judicial pronouncements, when the State does such an exercise, it will have to be supported by an empirical data. Unless the State or the Commission comes to a finding that the group carved out needs special treatment is more disadvantageous and not adequately represented as compared to the other categories in the group, such a sub-classification would not stand the scrutiny of the law. I, therefore, find that the fear that is posed is not substantiated.
I find that the attitude of the categories in the Presidential List opposing such a sub-classification is that of a person in the general compartment of the train. Firstly, the persons outside the compartment struggled to get into the general compartment. However, once they get inside it, they make every attempt possible to prevent the persons outside such a compartment from entering it.
In fact, what the people belonging to the categories who are availing of large chunk of reservations and denying a special treatment to the less privileged among them are doing, is what the people from the higher castes have done to these people for centuries as a result of which backward classes were kept away from the mainstream of society for ages, for no fault of theirs.
Only on account of the principle of social and economic justice as enshrined under the Constitution, they have availed themselves of the benefits of special treatment. However, when the State endeavours to ensure that the said benefit percolates to the more underprivileged and less adequately represented, the sections from the Scheduled Castes who oppose them, stand in the shoes of those who oppressed them.
The categories in the Presidential List who have already enjoyed a major chunk of reservations should not object to the State providing a special treatment to those who have been deprived of such a benefit and particularly when such a benefit is not being taken away from them. Only part of that benefit is being reserved for percolating the same to the more disadvantageous and less represented.
I find that to achieve real equality as envisaged by this Court in various judicial pronouncements, sub-classification amongst the Scheduled Castes for giving more beneficial treatment is wholly permissible under the Constitution.
Reference
State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024)