CJI: while 341 left the designation with the... ... Is Subclassification Permissible Within SC/ST Reservation ? Supreme Court Reserves Judgment [Live Updates Day 3]

CJI: while 341 left the designation with the parliament , 16 by itself recognised that the states will be implementing these spl measures or making any provision as 16(4) says ... so the role of the states is directly the recognised by 16(4)

Swarup : they have a role but what role is important, because that 341 picture is incomplete w/o 16(4) and 16(4) cannot be done w/o 341, so they re interrelated...can the state take up the identification process? no they have no role in it

Gavai J : no there is no question of identification, 16(4) is also an enabling provision. suppose the state decided to not provide the reservation that's the end of the matter. therefore can you deny the ground realities that in the list blacksmiths are there, scavengers they will face the same degree of discrimination when they are brought into the race, whether they are untouchables amongst untouchables , so therefore recognising the state decides to provide preferential treatment, would 341 come into that ?

Swarup : it would be barred by 341

Gavai J ; then it would perpetuate inequality amongst those classes.

Swarup : yes I am aware. ... my lord this submission from the other side is really questioning the 341 exercise.

Gavai J : not at all, After NM Thomas it was held that even if 16(4) was not there , still taking queue from article 14 and 16(1) it could have made reservations, the purpose is to remove inequalities and bring equality. so taking for example a particular caste in Maharashtra. For the last 75 yrs if they are taking reservations of 75-80% of the 13 % available reservation and there are some caste which have a sizable representation but they do not have even one or two percent reservation so would it not amount to perpetuating inequality amongst those classes identified under 341...