Cannot treat Scheduled Castes as a homogenous group: Supreme Court

Centre assures the court it is ‘committed’ to reservation policy; Tamil Nadu government says the policy should evolve with the times or would get ‘fossilised’

A seven-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud is examining the question whether individual States could identify and sub-classify backward classes within the Scheduled Caste category in order to give them more preference in reservation. File | Photo Credit: ANI

A seven-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud on Tuesday observed that Scheduled Castes cannot be treated as a “homogenous group” for granting reservation as some may have advanced in society while other continue to remain “particularly underprivileged”.

Meanwhile, the Centre assured the court it was “committed” to the reservation policy. The Tamil Nadu government, in its turn, said the reservation policy should evolve with the times or would get “fossilised”.

The Constitution Bench is examining the question whether individual States could identify and sub-classify backward classes within the Scheduled Caste category in order to give them more preference in reservation.

The court said the diverse groups, clubbed together in the Presidential list under Article 341 of the Constitution as “Scheduled Castes”, cannot be treated alike.

“What we have in the Presidential list is various castes, who have suffered humiliation and dehumanisation, put together… Sapera [snake charmer], Bazigar [acrobat], Batwal [watchman]... all with different occupations… The heterogeneity is clear from the Presidential list itself,” senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for a petitioner, highlighted.

The Chief Justice agreed they were heterogeneous in terms of their pre-existing occupations, social status and social indicators of backwardness or development. Over the decades, some of them had advanced while others continued to remain “particularly underprivileged”, Chief Justice Chandrachud noted.

The Chief Justice said social indicators like infant mortality, maternal mortality, and fertility rates would also broadly show whether there had been progress.

“The status of every caste may not be the same in the social hierarchy,” the CJI noted.

The debate revealed that the Bench was exploring a diametrically opposite view from that held in a 2004 Constitution Bench judgment in the E.V. Chinnaiah case. In this verdict, 20 years ago, a five-judge Bench had held that Scheduled Castes were a “homogenous group” and sub-classification would be a violation of the right to equality.

Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, acknowledged it was the duty of the State to remove barriers for the upliftment of the backward classes. Mr. Mehta said it was for a State to identify and recommend a backward group. The Parliament enacts the legislation including declaring the group in the Scheduled Caste category. The State concerned has to implement the reservation, he explained.

Senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, for Tamil Nadu, said it was within the prerogative of a State government to identify and sub-classify groups within the Scheduled Caste category in order to aid the “weakest of the weak”.

“It has been the consistent policy of the Government of Tamil Nadu to ensure the upliftment of the lowest-rung sections of the society,” Mr. Naphade, assisted by advocates Purnima Krishna and M.F. Philip, submitted in court.

The State was referring to the Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars (Special Reservation) Act of 2009. The Act had been brought into force to provide preferential reservation for the Arunthathiyar community, a historically oppressed class within Tamil Nadu, to get them on a par with other Scheduled Castes.