38.6c New Delhi, India, Wednesday, February 18, 2026
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

nobody-should-believe-anybody-before-marriage-sc-cautions-against-pre-marital-physical-relationships
Trending Judiciary
“Nobody Should Believe Anybody Before Marriage”: SC Cautions Against Pre-Marital Physical Relationships

Supreme Court cautions young adults on pre-marital relationships in a bail plea over rape on false promise of marriage; suggests mediation.

17 February, 2026 04:47 PM
allahabad-hc-refers-advocate-for-criminal-contempt-after-alleged-scandalous-remarks-during-bail-hearing
Trending Judiciary
Allahabad HC Refers Advocate for Criminal Contempt After Alleged Scandalous Remarks During Bail Hearing [Read Order]

Allahabad High Court refers advocate for criminal contempt over alleged scandalous remarks during a bail hearing in Uttar Pradesh.

17 February, 2026 05:15 PM

TOP STORIES

sc-notifies-2026-guidelines-for-senior-advocate-designation-scraps-point-system-and-interviews
Trending Judiciary
SC Notifies 2026 Guidelines for Senior Advocate Designation; Scraps Point System and Interviews [Read Notification]

Supreme Court notifies 2026 guidelines for Senior Advocate designation, abolishing point system and interviews; introduces holistic evaluation process.

12 February, 2026 04:00 PM
sunjay-kapur-will-dispute-priya-sachdev-files-application-to-dismiss-mil-rani-kapurs-family-trust-fraud-allegations
Trending Judiciary
Sunjay Kapur Will Dispute: Priya Sachdev Files Application To Dismiss MIL Rani Kapur’s Family Trust Fraud Allegations

Delhi HC issues notice on Priya Kapur’s plea to dismiss Rani Kapur’s suit alleging a fraudulent family trust to divert late Sunjay Kapur’s estate.

12 February, 2026 04:32 PM
girlfriend-cannot-be-deemed-relative-of-husband-telangana-hc
Trending Judiciary
Girlfriend Cannot Be Deemed ‘Relative’ of Husband: Telangana HC [Read Order]

Telangana High Court quashes case against girlfriend, holds she is not a “relative” under Section 498A IPC and cannot be charged with stalking under Section 354D.

12 February, 2026 04:46 PM
allahabad-hc-stays-section-174-a-ipc-proceedings-against-mla-abbas-ansari
Trending Judiciary
Allahabad HC Stays Section 174-A IPC Proceedings Against MLA Abbas Ansari [Read Order]

Allahabad High Court stayed proceedings against MLA Abbas Ansari under Section 174-A IPC over alleged non-compliance with proclamation proceedings.

12 February, 2026 05:08 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email