<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday favoured a larger than five-judge bench to decide on the issue of making a sub-classification in the Scheduled Castes category for reservation.</p>.<p>A five-judge bench, presided over by Justice Arun Mishra, held that such sub-categorisation can be made by the State legislature without violating the constitutional provisions or the Presidential List under Article 341. State legislatures may make laws to give preferential treatment to sub-castes within the Scheduled Caste categories, it said.</p>.<p>This judgement differed with the E V Chinnaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh case (2005) where a five-judge bench held that such a class cannot be sub-divided so as to give more preference to a miniscule proportion of the Scheduled Castes in preference to other members of the same class.</p>.<p>"If a class within a class of members of the Scheduled Castes is created, the same would amount to tinkering with the List. Such sub-classification would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution," it had held.</p>.<p>Following the difference of opinion between two five-judge Constitution benches, the issue is now to be decided by a larger bench.</p>.<p>On Thursday, the court directed for placing the matter before the Chief Justice of India for setting up a bench of appropriate strength to decide the issue.</p>.<p>The instant matter before the top court arose out of a decision by the Punjab and Haryana HC, which had quashed provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, giving first preferences to 'Balmikis' and 'Mazbhi Sikh' in granting quota. The HC had then cited the Chinnaiah case to hold that only Parliament can make change to the Presidential list.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday favoured a larger than five-judge bench to decide on the issue of making a sub-classification in the Scheduled Castes category for reservation.</p>.<p>A five-judge bench, presided over by Justice Arun Mishra, held that such sub-categorisation can be made by the State legislature without violating the constitutional provisions or the Presidential List under Article 341. State legislatures may make laws to give preferential treatment to sub-castes within the Scheduled Caste categories, it said.</p>.<p>This judgement differed with the E V Chinnaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh case (2005) where a five-judge bench held that such a class cannot be sub-divided so as to give more preference to a miniscule proportion of the Scheduled Castes in preference to other members of the same class.</p>.<p>"If a class within a class of members of the Scheduled Castes is created, the same would amount to tinkering with the List. Such sub-classification would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution," it had held.</p>.<p>Following the difference of opinion between two five-judge Constitution benches, the issue is now to be decided by a larger bench.</p>.<p>On Thursday, the court directed for placing the matter before the Chief Justice of India for setting up a bench of appropriate strength to decide the issue.</p>.<p>The instant matter before the top court arose out of a decision by the Punjab and Haryana HC, which had quashed provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, giving first preferences to 'Balmikis' and 'Mazbhi Sikh' in granting quota. The HC had then cited the Chinnaiah case to hold that only Parliament can make change to the Presidential list.</p>
