E.V. Chinnaiah

Sub-classification of SCSTs (2)
Case BriefsSupreme Court (Constitution/Larger Benches)

“State has neither executive nor legislative power to sub-classify or sub-divide or re-group the castes, races or tribes specified as the “Scheduled Castes” in the Presidential List notified under Article 341. Under the guise of providing reservation or under the pretext of taking affirmative action for the weaker of the weakest sections of the society, the State cannot vary, nor tinker the Presidential List.”

exclude creamy layer SC/ST
Case BriefsSupreme Court (Constitution/Larger Benches)

“The criteria for exclusion of the creamy layer from the SCs and STs for the purpose of affirmative action could be different from the criteria as applicable to the Other Backward Classes.”

sub-classification of SCSTs
Case BriefsSupreme Court (Constitution/Larger Benches)

“Article 341 does not create an integrated homogenous class. Sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes does not violate Article 341(2) because the castes are not per se included in or excluded from the List.”

Sub-classification of SCSTs
Hot Off The PressNews

In E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P., (2005) 1 SCC 394, the Supreme Court five Judge Bench held that Scheduled Castes form homogenous classes and there cannot be any sub-division, and that such sub-classification of SC/STs is contrary to Article 341 of the Constitution.

Case BriefsSupreme Court (Constitution/Larger Benches)

“The aspiration of equal treatment of the lowest strata, to whom the fruits of the reservation have not effectively reached, remains a