Why in news
The Supreme Court ruled that states can sub-classify Scheduled Castes to offer additional preferential treatment in public employment and education
This decision, made by a seven-judge Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, allows states to address specific needs within the SC community more effectively.
Judgement from Supreme Court
States have the constitutional right to sub-classify Scheduled Castes to provide more targeted preferential treatment
The principle of sub-classification, which was upheld for backward classes in the Indra Sawhney case, also applies to Scheduled Castes
Power of these States to sub-classify the Scheduled Castes for the purpose of affirmative action, traced to
Article 15(4) [prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, caste, etc] and
Article 16(5) [equal opportunity in public employment]
“Scheduled Castes” notified by the President under Article 341(1) consist of diverse groups with varying degrees of backwardness
Inclusion in the President’s List under Article 341(2) does not make Scheduled Castes a uniform or homogeneous group; they are not precluded from further sub-classification
The Court overturned the 2005 E.V. Chinnaiah case verdict, which had restricted states from sub-classifying Scheduled Castes, affirming that states can do so within constitutional limits.
On creamy layer
Four judges recommended extending the creamy layer principle to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to exclude affluent individuals from reservation benefits, ensuring that the benefits reach the more disadvantaged.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Bela Trivedi dissented, believing that states should not have the power to modify the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes
COMMENTS