<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday said states can make sub-categorisation among the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes for granting reservation.</p>.<p>The court said that the entire basket of fruits cannot be given to the mighty at the cost of others, under the guise of forming a homogenous class.</p>.<p>A five-judge bench presided over by Justice Arun Mishra said it would be permissible to make such sub-classification on a rational basis, to provide the benefit of reservation to all, to bring equality. If this is denied, it would defeat the right to equality, by treating unequal as equal, it said.</p>.<p>"It would not amount to exclusion from the list (of Scheduled Castes) as no class (caste) is deprived of reservation in totality," the bench, also comprising Justices Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and Aniruddha Bose, added.</p>.<p>In case benefit is permitted to be usurped by a few castes, who are adequately represented, have advanced and belong to the creamy layer, then it would tantamount to creating inequality, whereas in case of hunger, every person is required to be fed and provided bread, the bench said. </p>.<p>"There are unequals within SC/STs and socially and educationally backward classes. Reports indicate that SCs/STs do not constitute a homogenous group. The aspiration of equal treatment of the lowest strata, to whom the fruits of the reservation have not effectively reached, remains a dream. At the same time, various castes by and large remain where they were, and they remain unequals. Are they destined to carry their backwardness till eternity," the bench asked.</p>.<p>The court differed with the ruling laid down in a five-judge bench in E V Chinnaiah vs State of AP and Others case (2005), which had held that such a sub-classification would amount to tinkering with the List under Articles 341, 342 and 342A of the Constitution.</p>.<p>The judgement is set to trigger a massive debate on providing quota within quota and introducing creamy layers among the SC/STs.</p>.<p>The court passed its judgement on a reference by a three-judge bench dealing with a case arising out of the Punjab government's decision to give preference to Balmikis and Mazbhi Sikhs in granting quota.</p>.<p>The court said the E V Chinnaiah judgement was required to be revisited. It asked the CJI to set up a seven-judge or a larger bench to settle the matter.</p>.<p>In the 78-page judgement, the court held that sub-classification does not in any manner tinker with the Presidential list under Article 341 or 342.</p>.<p>It relied upon the decisions in Indra Sawhney (1992) (Mandal Commission case), permitting sub-classifications of backward classes and in the Jarnail Singh case (2018), in which it was opined that the 'creamy layer concept' for exclusion of benefit can be applied to the SC/STs.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday said states can make sub-categorisation among the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes for granting reservation.</p>.<p>The court said that the entire basket of fruits cannot be given to the mighty at the cost of others, under the guise of forming a homogenous class.</p>.<p>A five-judge bench presided over by Justice Arun Mishra said it would be permissible to make such sub-classification on a rational basis, to provide the benefit of reservation to all, to bring equality. If this is denied, it would defeat the right to equality, by treating unequal as equal, it said.</p>.<p>"It would not amount to exclusion from the list (of Scheduled Castes) as no class (caste) is deprived of reservation in totality," the bench, also comprising Justices Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and Aniruddha Bose, added.</p>.<p>In case benefit is permitted to be usurped by a few castes, who are adequately represented, have advanced and belong to the creamy layer, then it would tantamount to creating inequality, whereas in case of hunger, every person is required to be fed and provided bread, the bench said. </p>.<p>"There are unequals within SC/STs and socially and educationally backward classes. Reports indicate that SCs/STs do not constitute a homogenous group. The aspiration of equal treatment of the lowest strata, to whom the fruits of the reservation have not effectively reached, remains a dream. At the same time, various castes by and large remain where they were, and they remain unequals. Are they destined to carry their backwardness till eternity," the bench asked.</p>.<p>The court differed with the ruling laid down in a five-judge bench in E V Chinnaiah vs State of AP and Others case (2005), which had held that such a sub-classification would amount to tinkering with the List under Articles 341, 342 and 342A of the Constitution.</p>.<p>The judgement is set to trigger a massive debate on providing quota within quota and introducing creamy layers among the SC/STs.</p>.<p>The court passed its judgement on a reference by a three-judge bench dealing with a case arising out of the Punjab government's decision to give preference to Balmikis and Mazbhi Sikhs in granting quota.</p>.<p>The court said the E V Chinnaiah judgement was required to be revisited. It asked the CJI to set up a seven-judge or a larger bench to settle the matter.</p>.<p>In the 78-page judgement, the court held that sub-classification does not in any manner tinker with the Presidential list under Article 341 or 342.</p>.<p>It relied upon the decisions in Indra Sawhney (1992) (Mandal Commission case), permitting sub-classifications of backward classes and in the Jarnail Singh case (2018), in which it was opined that the 'creamy layer concept' for exclusion of benefit can be applied to the SC/STs.</p>
