ADVERTISEMENTREMOVE AD
Members Only
lock close icon

SC/ST Sub-classification: Does Judicial Analysis Capture Social Backwardness?

I explain why putting the onus upon some SCs seen as economically forward to reduce the disparity within is unfair.

Published: 
story-hero-img
i
Aa
Aa
Small
Aa
Medium
Aa
Large

On 20 March 2018, when a Supreme Court bench led by Justices Adarsh Goel and UU Lalit passed a judgment that effectively weakened the power of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the historically caste-oppressed communities across the country rose in anger to protect the Act in its originality. The subsequent Bharat Bandh call on 2 April forced the government to overturn the Supreme Court judgment through the approval of Parliament.

The recent 6:1 judgment on 1 August by a seven-judge Supreme Court constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India Justice Chandrachud has held that the sub-classification of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories is permissible. This has once again created a massive outrage among the oppressed groups, and a Bharat Bandh call has been made for 21 August too to protest the judgment.

I intend to analyse the judgment of the apex court on the sub-classification of SC and ST, which overturned the EV Chinniah judgment, in the light of the historical evolution of the Scheduled Caste category. The first question — is it even under the ambit of the Supreme Court to review a well-settled matter in the constituent assembly?

Supremacy of Articles 341(2) and 342(2)

Become a Member to unlock
  • Access to all paywalled content on site
  • Ad-free experience across The Quint
  • Listen to paywalled content
  • Early previews of our Special Projects
×
×