E. V. CHINNAIAH VS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court held in E. V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) 1 SCC 394 that sub-classification under Scheduled Castes is not permissible. Subsequently this judgment has been overruled in State of Punjab Vs Davinder Singh (Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 2011).
FACTS OF THE CASE
The State of Andhra Pradesh appointed a Commission headed by Sh. Ramchandra Raju to identify the groups among the Scheduled Castes found in the list prepared under Article 341 of the Constitution of India by the President who had failed to secure the benefits of reservation provided for Scheduled Castes in admission to professional colleges and services in the State. Based on report of Sh, Ramchandra Raju, the State vide an ordinance grouped Scheduled Castes mentioned in Presidential List in four groups as A, B, C and D based on inter se backwardness. 15% reservation for Scheduled Castes were divided into these groups – 1% for Group A, 7% for Group B, 6% for Group C and 1% for Group D.
The Ordinance was challenged before the High Court which was dismissed.
FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court framed three issues for determination – (i) Whether impugned Act is violative of Article 341 (2) of the Constitution? (ii) Whether impugned enactment is constitutionally invalid for lack of legislative competence? (iii) Whether sub-classification or micro- classification are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution ?
Article 341 provides that the President may with respect to any State or Union Territory after consultation with the Governor thereof by Public Notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. There can be only list of Scheduled Caste. Any inclusion or exclusion can only be done by Parliament. There is no provision for sub-divide, sub-classify or sub-group these castes. Any executive action or legislative enactment which interferes, disturbs, re-arranges, re-groups, re-classifies the various castes found in Presidential List will be violative of Article 341 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court considered whether Scheduled Caste in a Presidential List form a homogenous group. The Supreme Court noted that the Presidential List provides only for one list of Scheduled Castes. The Constitution intended that castes included under Presidential List will be deemed to be one class of persons.
The Supreme Court observed that principles laid down in Indra Sawhney Case for sub-classification of backward classes will not be applicable for sub-classification of Scheduled Class. The very judgment itself held that sub-division of scheduled classes is not applicable to Scheduled Class and Scheduled Tribes.
The Court also held that State Legislature does not have competence to sub-classify Scheduled Castes. The Supreme Court observed that primary object of the impugned enactment is to create groups of sub-castes in the list of Scheduled Castes applicable to the State and apportionment of reservation is only secondary and consequential. State does not have competence to make a law dividing the Scheduled Castes List of the State by tracing it competence to Entry 41 of List II or Entry 25 of List III. The Supreme Court was of opinion that enactment was not in pith and substance a law governing field of education or Public Services.
The Supreme Court also held that if a class within a class of members of Scheduled Class is created the same would be amount to tinkering with the Presidential List and will be in violation of Article 14.
The Supreme Court observed that Reservation must be considered from social objective angle having regard to constitutional scheme and not as a political issue.
The Supreme Court held that impugned legislation is beyond the legislative competence of State Legislature and also held that the same violative of Article 14.
_______________________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.