SC rejects the pleas for review of the verdict

The Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of pleas seeking review of its ruling that held that states are constitutionally empowered to make sub-classifications within the Scheduled Castes for granting reservations.

A seven-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma said no error is apparent prima facie.

The top court also rejected requests to include the review petitions in open court.

Justice Trivedi, who had written a separate dissenting judgment in the case, was also part of the seven judges who dismissed the pleas seeking review of the majority verdict.

“After examining the revision petitions, no error is apparent prima facie. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 has been identified. The review petitions are, therefore, dismissed,” the order read. of September 24, which was uploaded today, said.

On August 1, the Supreme Court had ruled that states are constitutionally empowered to make sub-classifications within the Scheduled Castes (SCs), which form a socially heterogeneous class, for granting reservation for the upliftment of castes that are socially and educationally backward.

However, the Supreme Court made it clear that states must make subclassification based on “quantifiable and demonstrable data” of backwardness and representation in government positions, and not on the basis of “whim” and as a matter of “political opportunism.”

A seven-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud, by a majority of 6:1, set aside the apex court’s 2004 judgment in EV Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, which had held that no sub-classification of SCs can be allowed. because they form a homogeneous class in themselves.

With the exception of Justice Trivedi, the remaining six judges agreed with the CJI’s findings.

Justice Trivedi in her 85-page dissenting judgment said that only Parliament can include or exclude a caste from the SC list and states have no power to tinker with it. The SCs, she ruled, are a “homogeneous class” that cannot be further subdivided.

Dismissing Chinnaiah’s verdict, the CJI dealt with the scope of sub-classification of SCs and said the objective of any form of affirmative action, including sub-classification, is to provide “substantial equality of opportunity to the backward classes”.

“The state can, among other things, sub-classify on the basis of inadequate representation of certain castes. However, the state must establish that the inadequate representation of a caste/group is due to its backwardness,” the report said.

The state will have to collect data on the inadequacy of representation in government jobs as it is used as an indicator of backwardness, the report said.

A dispute over subclassification arose after certain states, including Punjab, made laws to subclassify SCs to grant more quota benefits to certain castes.

The Supreme Court had stayed the verdict on February 8 on pleas seeking review of the Chinnaiah verdict, which held that all SCs who had suffered exclusion, discrimination and humiliation for centuries represented a homogeneous class that could not be sub-categorized accommodated.