LI Network
Published on: February 8, 2024 at 12:18 IST
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench, in its second day of hearings on February 7, delved into the issue of subclassifications within Scheduled Castes (SC)/Scheduled Tribes (ST).
The focus was on the homogeneity within the class and the interpretation of Article 341 of the Constitution concerning communities designated as “Scheduled Caste.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, argued against the decision in Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, pointing out two key errors.
Firstly, Chinnaiah treated SCs as a homogeneous group without acknowledging the inherent diversity within SCs. Secondly, it linked the Presidential Order solely to reservation without considering its broader constitutional purpose.
The Chief Justice observed that the homogeneity is for designation purposes, while Justice Gavai noted that, despite a common factor of social and economic backwardness, the degree of backwardness varies among individuals.
Emphasizing the purpose of Article 341, the CJI clarified that the designation is constitutional and extends beyond reservation, with Mr. Sibal highlighting that Article 16(4) grants the Parliament preliminary powers.
The discussion highlighted that while Article 341 is a prerequisite for reservations, it alone is insufficient for their implementation.
The CJI stressed that designation under Article 341 is necessary but not a sufficient condition for reservations, as additional enabling powers are conferred upon the Parliament or the executive.
Mr. Sibal stressed the existence of heterogeneity within Scheduled Castes, citing occupational differences as a basis for subclassification due to varied struggles and degrees of discrimination.
Referring to Justice Krishna Iyer’s observations, Mr. Sibal explained how the term “Mix Bag” underscored homogeneity, and he pointed out that discrimination levels varied among communities despite a common thread of social discrimination.
The discussion also touched upon historic untouchability, with Sr Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan linking the concept of SCs to ‘Historic Untouchability’ based on census reports from 1891 and 1931.
Sr Advocate Shekhar Naphade argued that Article 341 only empowers the president to identify SCs, and it is not a conclusive provision for reservations.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union of India, affirmed the government’s commitment to reservations and advocated for subclassification, stating that it ensures a trickle-down effect of reservations.
The ongoing hearings, which began on February 6, revolve around the permissibility of sub-classification within SC/STs. The 7-judge Constitution Bench aims to reconsider the earlier decision in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh. The arguments are set to continue.