{"id":140878,"date":"2024-09-24T08:32:13","date_gmt":"2024-09-24T08:32:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/2024\/09\/24\/sub-classification-of-scheduled-castes-for-quota-sc-to-consider-in-chambers-review-of-judgement\/"},"modified":"2024-09-24T08:32:13","modified_gmt":"2024-09-24T08:32:13","slug":"sub-classification-of-scheduled-castes-for-quota-sc-to-consider-in-chambers-review-of-judgement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/2024\/09\/24\/sub-classification-of-scheduled-castes-for-quota-sc-to-consider-in-chambers-review-of-judgement\/","title":{"rendered":"Sub-classification of Scheduled Castes for quota: SC to consider in-chambers review of judgement"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Sub-classification<\/div>\n
The Supreme Court<\/a> is scheduled to consider in-chambers on Tuesday a batch of pleas seeking review of its judgement which held that states are constitutionally empowered to make sub-classifications within the Scheduled Castes<\/a>, which form a socially heterogeneous class, for granting reservation<\/a>. As per the cause list, a seven-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud<\/a> and Justices B R Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma is likely to take up the matter at 1.35 pm. <\/p>\n

On August 1, the top court had held that states are constitutionally empowered to make sub-classifications within the Scheduled Castes, which form a socially heterogeneous class, for granting reservation for the uplift of castes that are socially and educationally more backward. <\/p>\n

The apex court, however, made it clear that states have to make sub-classification<\/a> on the basis of “quantifiable and demonstrable data” of backwardness and representation in government jobs and not on “whims” and as a matter of “political expediency<\/a>“. <\/p>\n

A seven-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Chandrachud, by a majority of 6:1, set aside the apex court’s five-judge bench verdict of 2004 in the EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh case which had held that no sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) can be allowed as they are a homogeneous class in themselves. <\/p>\n

Except for Justice Trivedi, the other five judges concurred with the findings of the CJI. <\/p>\n


Justice Trivedi, in her 85-page dissenting judgement, said it is only Parliament which can include a caste in the SC list or exclude it, and states are not empowered to tinker with it. The SCs, she ruled, are a “homogeneous class” incapable of being sub-classified further. Overruling the Chinnaiah verdict, the CJI dealt with the scope of sub-classification of SCs and said the objective of any form of affirmative action, including the sub-classification, is to provide “substantive equality of opportunity for the backward classes”. “The state can sub-classify, inter alia, based on inadequate representation of certain castes. However, the state must establish that the inadequacy of representation of a caste\/group is because of its backwardness,” it said. <\/p>\n

The state will have to collect data on inadequacy of representation in government jobs because it is used as an indicator of backwardness, it said. <\/p>\n

A dispute over sub-classification arose after certain states, including Punjab, made laws to sub-classify SCs to grant more quota benefits to certain castes. <\/p>\n

The top court had reserved the verdict on February 8 on pleas seeking review of the Chinnaiah judgement, which had ruled all SCs which suffered ostracisation, discrimination and humiliation for centuries represented a homogeneous class incapable of being sub-categorised.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n


\n
Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider in-chambers on Tuesday a batch of pleas seeking review of its judgement which held that states are constitutionally empowered to make sub-classifications within the Scheduled Castes, which form a socially heterogeneous class, for granting reservation. As per the cause list, a seven-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice D […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":140879,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"tdm_status":"","tdm_grid_status":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/img.etimg.com\/photo\/msid-113625813,imgsize-213496.cms","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[602],"tags":[88158,76427,112355,46328,112353,25163,36895,227,5312,84611,88156,112354,1617],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140878"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=140878"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140878\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":140880,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140878\/revisions\/140880"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/140879"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140878"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=140878"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news.talkwithrattan.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=140878"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}