Does state govt hold power to sub-classify SCs, STs for quota, SC delves into legality
The Supreme Court on Tuesday initiated an examination into a legal query concerning whether a state government holds the authority to create a sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) for the provision of reservations in admissions and public employment.
A seven-judge Constitution bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, is also scrutinising the legality of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. This act, which allocated a 50 per cent quota with ‘first preference’ to the ‘Valmikis’ and ‘Mazhabi Sikhs’ castes within the SCs quota for public job, is under review.
Comprising Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Mishra, the bench is addressing 23 petitions, including the primary one filed by the Punjab Government contesting the 2010 ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The High Court had invalidated Section 4(5) of the Punjab law, which granted a 50 percent SC quota to ‘Valmikis’ and ‘Mazhabi Sikhs’, deeming it unconstitutional. One of the grounds for this decision was that the provision contravened a 2004 Supreme Court judgment in the case of EV Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, which stated that any ‘sub-classification’ of the Scheduled Castes would violate Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution.
The 2004 verdict also asserted that only Parliament, not state legislatures, can exclude castes categorised as SC from the Presidential List under Article 341 of the Constitution.
The Punjab government, in 2011, had come to the top court assailing the high court’s verdict, saying the apex court’s 2004 judgment was not applicable to it.
Taking up the plea of the Punjab government, a fivejudge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra (since retired), on August 27, 2020, differed with the Chinnaiah judgment and referred it for adjudication by a larger bench of seven judges or more for an authoritative pronouncement.
“We endorse the opinion of a bench of three judges that EV Chinnaiah is required to be revisited by a larger bench; more so, in view of further development and the amendment of the
The same yardstick is applied in the case of public employment as well. In states like Punjab and Haryana, there is no ST population