Central government not against reservation; supports sub-classification of reserved classes: SG Tushar Mehta to Supreme Court

The Central government on Wednesday strongly defended reservation for downtrodden classes in India before the Supreme Court, while informing that it is also in favour of having sub-classifications among Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Scheduled Castes (SCs) [State of Punjab and ors vs Davinder Singh and ors]..The submission was made by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta today before a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud with Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma.."The most relevant part is that slowly and gradually, this Court on the judicial side had noted that there needs to be some rationing, for the central government. We are committed to reservation. We are here only on sub-classification and this was bothering this court," the SG said..The Court was hearing a case involving questions on the legality of sub-classifying reserved communities like SCs and STs.The question arose after a law passed by the Punjab legislative assembly in 2006 for such sub-classification, namely the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, was struck down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.This led to an appeal by the Punjab government before the top court.The appeal was initially heard by a three-judge bench and then later by a five-judge bench of the Court. In August 2020, the matter was referred to a seven-judge bench of the top court after the five-judge bench disagreed with the decision rendered in the EV Chinnaiah case which had deemed caste sub-categories unconstitutional..While hearing the matter yesterday, the Supreme Court had orally observed that the Punjab government's law on sub-classification within the reserved categories may have been aimed at excluding communities that have already benefited due to the relaxations granted by law..Solicitor General Mehta argued today that enabling sub-classifications would ensure that reservation benefits are extended to persons more in need of the said benefits. The sub-classification of SC/ST quota would further the guarantee of social justice, SG Mehta said. "To achieve the actual objective behind reservations, the rationalisation is key (while maintaining the permissible levels and extent of reservations) and proliferation and deepening of the reservation benefits is necessary. The sub-classification of the said benefits is a key measure which goes a long way to achieve the said objective. This ensures that there is a trickle-down effect of reservations," Mehta submitted. .Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the decision in Chinnaiah was wrong as it considered Scheduled Castes a homogenous group without any factual backing. "Designation is for purposes of the Constitution and is not coterminous with reservation", the CJI observed to which Sibal agreed.The senior counsel then pointed out that 32 percent of the population in Punjab were Dalits..Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued next, stating that only parliament (and not State Legislative Assemblies) can make inclusions or exclusions among the reserved groups."As far as (Article) 16(4) is concerned, State can always issue. Why cannot the State exclude (from reserved categories) some (communities) who have developed and are not backward any longer?" Justice Nath asked. Sankaranarayanan asserted that States do not have such powers. States do not have the power to impose caps on quotas, but can only decide on its sub-distribution, he said..Former Attorney General and Senior Advocate KK Venugopal also made arguments today, representing the Madiga Reservation Porata Samithi, a party in the Chinnaiah case. "Article 14 is the golden thread which runs in the Constitution. When there is no sub-categorisation, the weakest of the weak will fall to the ground and the stronger ones therein will end up getting the lion's share, thereby negating the entire reason why the reservation was there in the first place," he said..Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade added that the Chinnaiah ruling was contrary to the decision in Indra Sawhney v Union of India (which had allowed subcategories within Other Backward Classes)."The judgment (in Chinnaiah's case) also affects efficiency. Whether my sub-classification stands the scrutiny of classification test - that is the test. State has vital stakes in this," Naphade added. Senior Advocates Nidhesh Gupta, Salman Khurshid, Vijay Hansaria and Dama Seshadri Naidu echoed these submissions..Advocate Shivam Singh argued that in the EWS judgment, the Supreme Court had held that States should have the power to assess the point of intersectionality.Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for the Telangana government and said that the Madiga community, despite constituting 70 percent population among the reserved category, avails only 20 percent of quota benefits.Former judge and Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar appeared for the Andhra Pradesh government and submitted that the State has not carried out any sub-classification post the Chinnaiah verdict..Advocate Kanu Agrawal argued that the decision in Sawhney had laid out the contours for the implementation of reservation. "Sub-classification does not fall in identification. Sub-classification is important from a policy point of view. State needs to exercise this policy malleably," he added..The hearing will continue tomorrow..[Read our live coverage of today's hearing]