Fragmentation or Fairness? The Indian Supreme Court’s Judgment on Sub-Classification of SCs and STs

By Rishabh Sharma, Gujarat National Law University, B.S.W LLB Class of 2027

Introduction

The reservation system in India is designed to uplift historically marginalized groups, primarily Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), through quotas. The system is enshrined in the Indian Constitution and aims to provide members of the designated groups with better access to education, employment, and political representation. In a landmark judgment on August 1, 2024, in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, the Indian Supreme Court paved the way for a more nuanced approach to reservations for SCs and STs. The seven-judge Constitution bench, in a six-to-one ruling, ruled that Indian states may sub-classify these communities to provide better support for the most disadvantaged people within them.

This decision overturned the apex court’s previous stance in the 2004 case of E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, where it had held that SCs and STs form a homogeneous group that cannot be divided further. The Davinder Singh judgment, by contrast, acknowledges diversity within these communities and the need for targeted interventions to address systemic discrimination. 

Understanding SCs, STs, and OBCs

The Indian Constitution recognizes specific communities as SCs and STs to address historical injustices and provide affirmative action. The Indian government formalized OBCs as a third category qualifying for affirmative action following a 1980 government commission report on “backward classes.”

• Scheduled Castes (SCs) – These communities, estimated at seventeen to twenty-five percent of India’s population, have historically faced social discrimination and “untouchability.” They have been marginalized and subjected to social and economic discrimination. ​
• Scheduled Tribes (STs) – These groups, comprising approximately nine percent of India’s population, are indigenous communities that have maintained distinct cultural identities and often reside in remote areas. They have been isolated from mainstream society and have unique cultural practices. 
• Other Backward Classes (OBCs) – These communities, falling between the upper castes and the SCs/STs and estimated at thirty-five percent of India’s population, are considered socially and educationally disadvantaged, or “backward.”​ Unlike SCs and STs, OBCs were subject to sub-classification in India’s reservation system even before the Davinder Singh decision. 

The Rationale Behind Sub-Classification

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Davinder Singh emphasizes the importance of substantive equality over formal equality. While formal equality would treat everyone within a class the same, regardless of their circumstances, substantive equality seeks to address differences to achieve actual fairness. By allowing sub-classification, the judgment aims to ensure that reservation benefits reach those who are truly disadvantaged and in need of support.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, in his opinion, highlighted historical evidence suggesting that SCs are not a homogeneous class. He argued that sub-classification does not violate the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution or Article 341, which empowers the President to identify and notify SCs, because the Constitution does not provide for absolute equality. Rather, it provides for substantive equality. 

Concerns and Criticisms

The judgment raised concerns among some legal scholars and dissenting voices. Justice Bela Trivedi, in the lone dissenting opinion, contended that the power to classify castes is constitutionally reserved for the President, and states may lack the competence to implement such classifications effectively.

Critics of the Davinder Singh decision argue that allowing sub-classification could lead to political manipulation and micro-classification, undermining the original intent of reservations. One concern is that state governments might prioritize certain sub-groups for political gain rather than genuine interest in establishing substantive equality.

Some scholars have also pointed out that the framers of the Indian Constitution did not conceptualize reservations as an instrument for economic equality but rather as a remedial measure for historical discrimination and stigmatization. The introduction of the “creamy layer” principle, which excludes wealthier individuals within SC and ST categories from reservation benefits, may further complicate this debate. The creamy layer concept, initially applied only to OBCs, identifies the more affluent members within these communities who are deemed not to require affirmative action. Applying this principle to SCs and STs could potentially exclude individuals who, despite economic advancement, continue to face social discrimination.

The Way Forward

The Supreme Court’s Davinder Singh judgment presents both opportunities and challenges for the representation of marginalized communities in India. While it acknowledges the diversity within SCs and STs and the need for targeted interventions, it also raises questions about implementation, potential misuse, and the preservation of unity among these groups. For example, any political manipulation of the sub-classification process could divert benefits away from those who need them most. Additionally, creating divisions within already marginalized communities might weaken their collective bargaining power and social cohesion. Therefore, careful consideration and robust safeguards are essential to ensure that sub-classification serves its intended purpose without unintended negative consequences.

As states begin to implement sub-classification, it will be crucial to ensure that the process is based on empirical data and historical evidence rather than arbitrary or political reasons. The Supreme Court has clarified that it is not permissible to allot 100 percent of an SC’s or ST’s reservation to any particular sub-class, and state decisions on sub-classification are subject to judicial review to prevent misuse.

Moreover, the discourse surrounding sub-classification must engage with the lived experiences of marginalized communities and address their concerns regarding fragmentation and competition for limited resources. It is essential to foster an inclusive dialogue that recognizes the historical injustices faced by SCs and STs while also addressing the concerns of the general community regarding merit and equity.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision on the sub-classification of SCs and STs represents a significant development in the ongoing quest for social justice in India and in the broader, global discussion on the practical implementation of inclusion and equality. By acknowledging the diversity within the SC and ST communities and the need for targeted interventions, the judgment seeks to enhance the effectiveness of affirmative action policies. However, the success of this judgment will depend on its implementation and the ability of stakeholders to navigate the complexities that may arise from sub-classification. As the nation embarks on this new chapter, it is crucial to engage in thoughtful and inclusive dialogue, drawing upon empirical evidence, legal expertise, and the perspectives of marginalized communities. Only then can India truly fulfill the promise of substantive equality and build a more just and equitable society.