Use data, reason, don’t split to keep out: How Supreme Court lays down red lines in sub-classification verdict

The ruling says that states cannot micro-classify in a way that it would “denude”, “rather than promote” the guarantee of equality or in a way that replaces the doctrine of equality with the “doctrine of classification.”

“If the law stipulates that the loan of farmers from one specific village in a State will be fully waived, it must prove through the submission of cogent material that there is a rational principle distinguishing one village from other villages in the State. In this context, the State will for example have to prove that location of the land is a rational principle of categorization and then subsequently prove that the village is not similarly situated for the purpose of the law,” the CJI said in an illustrative example.

Justice BR Gavai, who delivered a separate but concurring opinion, said that for sub-classifying the quota, “state will have to justify that the group for which more beneficial treatment is provided is inadequately represented as compared to the other castes in the said List.”

The Bench of (from left) Justices Manoj Misra, Bela M Trivedi, B R Gavai, CJI D Y Chandrachud, Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal and Satish Chandra Sharma.

The opinion also explicitly states how states cannot sub-classify the quota. “While providing for sub-classification, the State would not be entitled to reserve 100% seats available for Scheduled Castes in favour of a sub-class to the exclusion of other castes in the List,” the ruling stated.

Justice Gavai called for bringing in the “creamy layer” framework even for SC/ST quota, despite warning against exclusion with micro-classification.

“I am therefore of the view that the State must evolve a policy for identifying the creamy layer even from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes so as exclude them from the benefit of affirmative action. In my view, only this and this alone can achieve the real equality as enshrined under the Constitution,” Justice Gavai said.