The Supreme Court’s seven-judge Constitution bench wrapped up its hearing on the legality of creating subcategories within the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) classifications.
Following three days of hearings, the Supreme Court has reserved the decision. After considering the arguments put forth by each party, the court reserved its judgment. Whether state legislatures have the authority to create subcategories under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories must be determined by the court.
Committed to reservations
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that it is committed to reservation while hearing the petitions on sub-categorization of the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST)
A bench comprising of Supreme Court Chief Justice (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Mishra, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sandeep Mehta conducted the hearing.
The submission was made by Solicitor General Tushar before the seven-judge bench.
Also read: SC Disposes Curative Plea Against 2013 Verdict On Criminalising Homosexuality Calls It ‘Infructuous’
“For the central government, we are committed to the reservation, we are here only on sub-classification, and this was the concern of the court,” said the solicitor general.
Mehta further added, “Allowing the sub-classification of SC/ST and other backward classes would grant both the central and state governments the necessary flexibility to formulate appropriate policies in pursuit of the constitutional goal of social justice, aimed at achieving de facto equality of opportunity.”
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal’s stance
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal highlighted the contemporary concerns and opened the argument, he said, “The state can only allocate a limited number of seats in government higher education institutions and government service positions that are reserved. These seats and positions are already scarce and thus require rational redistribution. Given their scarcity, efficient distribution among communities is crucial to fulfilling their intended purpose.”
Sibal further contended that the Chinnaiah ruling was flawed because it treated Scheduled Castes as a monolithic group devoid of supporting evidence.
“Designation is for purposes of the Constitution and is not conterminous with reservation,” the CJI said.
Background of the case
The case about subcategorization began in 2020, when Justice (retd) Arun Mishra, chairing a five-judge bench, declared that the state government could classify Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as “most vulnerable people” on the central list.
But this bench’s methodology went against a 2004 ruling by a different five-judge bench. According to the ruling, permitting states to “create a class within a class of Scheduled Caste members” on their own would be considered meddling with the President’s authority.
The case was referred to a seven-judge bench as it faced opposing views. The queries sent to the bench also comprised whether sub-categorization could be allowed for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories, as the same was allowed for the SEBC category.
The state legislature’s competence to introduce sub-categorization within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories will be decided by the court.
