38.6c New Delhi, India, Friday, August 15, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Plea filed in SC for review of Aug 1 judgment on sub classification of SC/STs

By Jhanak Sharma      22 August, 2024 01:42 PM      0 Comments
Plea filed in SC for review of Aug 1 judgment on sub classification of SC STs

NEW DELHI: A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court for review of its August 1, 2024 judgment that allowed the States to sub classify Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to provide preferential treatment to the disadvantaged groups among them in government jobs and education.

Mumbai-based Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil filed the review petition claiming the States not empowered to carry out such an exercise, since the powers are exclusively vested with the President under Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution to identify the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The plea said States cannot use their power to reserve seats under Article 15 (4) and 16 (4) of the Constitution for imperial inquiry to upset the list made by the President and this violates Article 341 and 342 of the Constitution.

"If any community has advanced or ceased to be a part of Scheduled Castes or Tribes, the Parliament has got the exclusive power to include in or exclude from such community from the 1950 Order. The concurrent exercise is not contemplated by the States," the petition said.

The petition contended when this court in Indra Sawhney (1992) held that the backward classes can be further sub divided, it meant the Other Backward Classes or the SEBCs and not the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

"The power to deal with the 1950's Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders is not available to anyone, the Union Government or the State (including State Legislature) except the Parliament. Indra Sawhney didn't deal with the sub-division or sub classification of SC/ST and it remain limited to the OBCs," the plea said.

It also said the question of sub classification and exclusion of creamy layer is a question of identification of a backward class and power to identify the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is not available to the States by implication of Article 341 and 342 and more specifically due to prohibition contained under clause 2 of those Articles.

The plea also stated even if the phrase, "backward classes" in Article 16(4) is construed to be including the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes,  it will not allow the State to apply the test of backwardness on the SC/STs as they are already defined on the relevant criteria of identification and except untouchability, backwardness of any kind was never a test of their identification.

"Therefore, to further classify them on the criteria other that historic criteria of untouchability will not be permissible. Also, any classification of the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes included in the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, Order, 1950 is not permissible," it said.

The plea said the question of sub-classification is essentially a question of identification as held by this court in Indra Sawhney. For this reason alone, the State has no competence while dealing the SC/STs under Article 16(4) or 15(4) of the Constitution, it asserted.

The petition also contended the question of "creamy layer" was not before this court and the only question was whether the E V Chinnaiah required reconsideration.

"Hence any direction to exclude the creamy layer from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is patently illegal. Also, the said direction runs counter to the Indra Sawhney judgment of the Supreme Court," the plea said.

The petition also said the Constitution doesn't carve out any exception for reservation or affirmative action to Article 15 (1) and 16 (2) of the Constitution except the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of People or the Backward Class of Citizens and hence a new group which will be a collection of caste will not be permissible because that group will not be Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of people or the Backward Class of citizens.

On August 1, 2024, the Supreme Court has held sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is constitutionally permissible. It also approved of applying the principle of creamy layer among the SC/STs.



Share this article:

About:

Jhanak is a lawyer by profession and legal journalist by passion. She graduated at the top of her cl...Read more

Follow:
FacebookTwitterLinkedinInstagram


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations Another CBI Officer Investigating Rakesh Asthana Moves SC Against Transfer, Makes Startling Revelations

After A.K. Bassi, another CBI officer who was investigating corruption allegations against Special Director Rakesh Asthana moved the Supreme Court.

Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land Ayodhya verdict: SC rules in favour of Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board gets alternate land

SC bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi has allotted the dispute site to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, while directing the government to allot an alternate 5 acre land within Ayodhya to Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque.

Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi Supreme Court: Money Spent On Judiciary Less Than 1% In All States Except Delhi

The court guided all states to document their response to the commission's report within four weeks. If any of the states fail to file a response, it will be presumed that they have no objections to the recommendations made by the commission, the court said.

Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts Supreme Court Top Panel Names Chief Justices for Bombay, Orissa and Meghalaya High Courts

On April 18, 2020, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended new Chief Justices for three High Courts. Justice Dipankar Datta was proposed as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, succeeding Justice B.P. Dharmadhikari. Justice Biswanath Somadder was nominated as Chief Justice of Meghalaya High Court, while Justice Mohammad Rafiq was recommended for transfer as Chief Justice of Orissa High Court.

TRENDING NEWS

sc-sets-aside-bail-to-actor-darshan-warns-jail-officials-against-vip-treatment
Trending CelebStreet
SC sets aside bail to actor Darshan; warns jail officials against VIP treatment

SC cancels bail to actor Darshan in murder case; slams VIP jail perks, warns officials to uphold rule of law and treat all accused equally.

14 August, 2025 12:30 PM
sc-refuses-stay-on-directions-for-immediate-shifting-of-stray-dogs-to-shelter-homes
Trending Judiciary
SC refuses stay on directions for immediate shifting of stray dogs to shelter homes

SC refuses to stay order directing urgent relocation of stray dogs in Delhi-NCR; asks intervenors to file affidavits amid rising dog bite concerns.

14 August, 2025 03:33 PM

TOP STORIES

sc-declines-to-interfere-with-patkars-conviction-in-defamation-case
Trending Judiciary
SC declines to interfere with Patkar's conviction in defamation case

SC refuses to interfere with Medha Patkar’s conviction in 2001 defamation case filed by Delhi L-G V K Saxena, but sets aside ₹1 lakh penalty imposed on her.

11 August, 2025 02:29 PM
sc-directs-for-removing-stray-dogs-in-delhi-ncr
Trending Judiciary
SC directs for removing stray dogs in Delhi NCR

SC orders removal of all stray dogs in Delhi-NCR within 8 weeks, to be housed in shelters; warns against obstruction amid rising rabies, dog-bite cases.

11 August, 2025 06:42 PM
hc-judges-in-no-way-inferior-to-sc-judges-sc
Trending Judiciary
HC judges in no way inferior to SC judges: SC

SC affirms HC judges are equal in stature to SC judges; directs apology for unfounded allegations against Telangana HC judge.

12 August, 2025 12:14 PM
law-does-not-require-to-provide-separate-list-of-electors-not-included-in-draft-rolls
Trending Judiciary
Law does not require to provide separate list of electors not included in draft rolls, EC tells SC

EC tells SC no legal mandate to publish separate list or reasons for voters excluded from draft rolls; affected persons can file claims under Form 6.

12 August, 2025 12:33 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email