The issue of whether the State can further sub-classify within a class for the purpose of reservation was first addressed in the case of MR Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963). The Supreme Court held that reservations could be made for backward classes but the State could not create further sub-classes within the reserved categories without specific justification.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s vision for Articles 341 and 342 (relating to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) was to ensure that the lists of these communities could not be changed arbitrarily by the President alone. Instead, changes could only be made by Parliament to avoid political influences from distorting the list for political gain.
Articles 46, 335, 338, 341, and 342, along with Articles 14, 15, and 16, form a comprehensive framework aimed at achieving social and economic equality. These articles collectively address the interests of backward classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes, ensuring that affirmative action and reservations are provided in both educational and employment opportunities.
In a significant judgment, Justice B.R. Gavai elaborated on the conditions under which sub-classification among Scheduled Castes is permissible. He laid down that empirical data must justify the need for sub-classification, particularly where a certain sub-class is not adequately represented. Furthermore, criteria for exclusion of the creamy layer may differ from those applicable to OBCs.
Sub-classification of Scheduled Castes requires data on their representation and backwardness. It also requires ensuring that the process promotes inclusion and equality under Article 16(1). However, the State is not obligated to further classify the Scheduled Castes under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) unless there is a clear justification for doing so based on empirical data.