The Supreme Court, on Thursday, deliberated on a crucial legal matter pertaining to whether a state government possesses the authority to enact sub-classifications within scheduled castes and scheduled tribes for the allocation of reservations in admissions and public employment.

A seven-judge constitution bench, presided over by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, listened to arguments presented by prominent legal figures including Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and senior advocate Kapil Sibal.

The discussion revolved around revisiting the E V Chinnaiah judgement of 2004, which asserted that all scheduled caste communities, having endured centuries of ostracism, discrimination, and indignity, constitute a unified class, thereby ineligible for further sub-categorisation.

Comprising of justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Mishra, the bench considered 23 petitions, notably including one led by the Punjab government contesting the 2010 ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The apex court's deliberations aim to reassess a pivotal five-judge constitution bench ruling from 2004, spotlighting the case of EV Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh.

This precedent underscored the homogeneity of SCs and STs as social groups, thereby asserting that states lack the authority to further classify them to allocate reservations within reservations for the more marginalized and vulnerable castes within these communities.

The Chinnaiah judgement emphasised that any sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes would contravene Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality. Moreover, it delineated that only Parliament, and not state legislatures, retains the power to exclude certain castes from the Presidential List under Article 341 of the Constitution.

As the apex court ponders these legal intricacies, the outcome holds significant implications for the framework of affirmative action and social justice in India, navigating the delicate balance between constitutional provisions and the imperative to address historical injustices.