SC verdict on SC quota: Big win for Krishna Madiga

The landmark judgement delivered by the Supreme Court on Thursday upholding the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by the states has come as a big victory for Manda Krishna Madiga, founder-president of Madiga Reservation Porata Samithi.

Krishna Madiga, who launched a massive agitation nearly three decades ago in the combined Andhra Pradesh regime, demanding that SCs be divided into sub-categories for the implementation of reservations in education and employment.

His argument has been that only a particular section of SCs – Malas, have been bagging all the benefits of SC reservations, whereas Madigas, who are more backward and numerically strong and other lower sections of SCs like Rellis – have been denied their legitimate rights.

In the last three decades, Krishna Madiga grew into a sort of national figure, as several states adopted resolutions seeking powers to sub-classify the SC reservations. The issue has moved from lower courts to finally the Supreme Court. Readmore!

On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld the power of states to sub-classify reserved category groups – SCs and STs into different groups based on their inter se backwardness for extending the benefits of reservation.

A seven-judge Constitution 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 overruled the 2005 judgment of EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh which had held that sub-classification of SC/STs is contrary to Article 341 of the Constitution which confers right on the President to prepare the list of SC/STs.

Justice Bela Trivedi dissented from the majority and ruled that such sub-classification is not permissible.

"The members of SC/ST are not often able to climb up the ladder due to the systemic discrimination faced. Article 14 permits sub-classification of caste. Court must check if a class is homogeneous or and a class not integrated for a purpose can be further classified," the Bench said pronouncing its judgment.

Show comments