Blog's

Supreme Court About Reservation 2024

While the majority opinion agreed on sub-categorization, Supreme Court Justice Barak Pankaj Mithal called for unity on the North-East system and said there is a need for other nominations for the SC/ST/OBC region. Fort Mithal, who was part of the 6-1 majority of the seven-judge bench, said in his concurring judgment…

A 7-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud overturned its 2004 Constitution bench judgment which had ruled against giving preference to certain castes within the Scheduled Caste (SC) classification. The bench delivered a total of six judgments on Thursday and all but one agreed that sub-classification was possible – Justice Bela Trivedi dissented. The majority rejected the 2004 EV Chinnaiah judgment, which stated That sub-classification is not allowed. The bench comprised Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Mishra and Satish Chandra Sharma.

The Court also said that this decision does not indicate that the State can prescribe 100% reservation for any sub-category. The State has to justify the sub-classification on the basis of empirical data regarding inadequate representation of the sub-class.

According to Live Law, the Constitution Bench mainly considered two aspects – whether sub-categorization should be allowed within the reserved castes, and the decision given in EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394. True, it is recognized that the ‘Scheduled Castes’ (SC) notified under Article 341 are a homogeneous group and cannot be further sub-categorized.

Scheduled Castes are not a homogeneous class

In the judgment written for himself and Justice Mishra, CJI DY Chandrachud cited historical evidence to show that the Scheduled Castes are not a homogeneous class. The CJI said, “Sub-classification does not violate the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. Also, sub-classification does not violate Article 341(2) of the Constitution. No such provision in Articles 15 and 16 Not there.” ” “Prohibits the State from sub-classifying any caste.”

Justice Gavai also raised the issue of formulating a policy to identify the creamy layer in the SC/ST category and exclude them from the ambit of affirmative action. He said this is the only way to achieve true equality.