Centre supports sub-classification of SCs/STs for ‘proliferation and deepening of reservation benefits’

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, February 7

The Centre on Wednesday supported sub-classification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for “proliferation and deepening of reservation benefits” and to ensure a “trickle-down effect of reservations”.

Noting that reservation benefits available are “limited in nature” and “the said seats and the posts are even otherwise a scarce commodity”, the Centre said, therefore, it’s required to be re-distributed rationally.

“Considering the scarce nature (of government jobs and seats in educational institutions), it is important that the commodity is distributed efficiently and for the actual purpose it seeks to achieve,” Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said in his written submission before a seven-judge Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud, which was examining the issue of sub-categorisation in Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for availing of quota benefits.

“In order to achieve the actual objective behind reservations, the rationalisation is key (while maintaining the levels and extent of reservations) and proliferation and deepening of the reservation benefits is necessary. The sub-classification of the said benefits is a key measure which goes a long way to achieve the said objective. This ensures that there is a trickle-down effect of reservations,” Mehta submitted on the second day of hearing on the contentious issue.

The Bench which also included Justice BR Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Bela M Trivedi, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Misra and Justice SC Mishra is examining if states can sub-classify Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes to ensure greater reservations for some SC/ST groups over others. It’s also considering if the exclusion of sub-classification within Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories is invalid even when the same is permitted for the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes categories.

The top court is testing the validity of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which provided for 50 per cent reservation with the first preference to ‘Valmikis’ and ‘Mazhabi Sikhs’ in public employment within the quota meant for SCs. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had declared Section 4(5) of the Act unconstitutional, saying it went against its 2005 ruling in EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh that said SCs formed a homogenous class and there can’t be any sub-division in the category.

If the top court accepts the Centre’s views, it will benefit ‘Valmikis’ and ‘Mazhabi Sikhs’ who will get preference in public employment in Punjab within the quota meant for SCs.

The Bench said it will not get into the arguments related to the quantifiable data which led the Punjab government to provide for a 50 per cent quota within the quota.

Noting that the concept of equality of opportunity operates at a dual level – between open category and backward classes – and secondly, it has to operate even within the backward classes inter-se, Mehta submitted that bundling together of SC/STs by the Chinnaiah verdict dis-empowered the State to frame appropriate policy by sub-classifying the zone of reservation appropriately and diminished the constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity.

“The lack of sub-classification perpetuates the zone of inequality within the reserved category and stops the State from framing appropriate policy in this regard,” Mehta submitted.

The Centre, however, sought to clarify that sub-classification would not tinker with the finality of determination under Article 341 and Article 342 with regard to identification of a caste as SC or ST.

During the hearing, the Bench said, “They (SCs and STs) may be a class for a certain purpose. But, they may not be a class for all purposes.”

On the first day of hearing, the top court on Tuesday had said the castes which have progressed by benefiting from reservation should compete with the general category, leaving the quota for those still lagging behind.

“Why shouldn’t there be exclusion? According to you, amongst a particular category, some of the sub-castes have done better. They are the forward in that category. They should come out of that and compete with the general (category). Why stay there? And let the remaining — who are still backward within the backward… let them get the reservation… Once you achieve the purpose of reservation, you should pull out of that reservation,” Justice Nath had said, summing up the arguments of Punjab Advocate General Gurminder Singh.

“That’s the aim… and if that aim is achieved, then the purpose for which the exercise was undertaken should come to an end”, Singh had replied.

“Reservation is no benevolence… it’s not an act of benevolence by the entitled to the needy at all. If at all it’s the compensation for centuries of oppression for the needy… what has been done is most certainly not enough,” the Advocate General had said.