The Supreme Court of India on Thursday (Aug 1) permitted the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to&nbsp;help uplift the more underprivileged and downtrodden.

A seven-judge constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, delivered this landmark verdict with a 6:1 majority.

<h2 bis_size="{&quot;x&quot;:8,&quot;y&quot;:135,&quot;w&quot;:723,&quot;h&quot;:26,&quot;abs_x&quot;:41,&quot;abs_y&quot;:1972}">What does the judgement say?</h2>

The majority opinion, articulated through six separate judgements, states that subclassification must be based on "quantifiable and demonstrable data" provided by the states. This seeks to ensure that the process is not arbitrary.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a bis_size="{&quot;x&quot;:88,&quot;y&quot;:247,&quot;w&quot;:572,&quot;h&quot;:16,&quot;abs_x&quot;:121,&quot;abs_y&quot;:2084}" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/video-women-on-bike-harassed-by-men-on-flooded-road-in-lucknow-4-arrested-746125">Video: Woman on bike harassed by men on flooded road in Lucknow; 4 arrested</a>

With this ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overruled its previous 2004 judgement in the EV Chinnaiah case, which held that SCs and STs are homogenous groups that cannot be further subdivided for quotas.

The bench, comprising justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Mishra, reviewed 23 petitions, including a prominent one filed by the Punjab government. The government had challenged a 2010 verdict by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.&nbsp;

Chief Justice Chandrachud, joined by Justice Misra, wrote the lead opinion while four other judges provided similar judgements. Justice Trivedi dissented.

Justice Gavai, in a separate verdict, emphasised the need for states to identify and exclude the "creamy layer" within SCs and STs from reservation benefits.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a bis_size="{&quot;x&quot;:88,&quot;y&quot;:495,&quot;w&quot;:508,&quot;h&quot;:16,&quot;abs_x&quot;:121,&quot;abs_y&quot;:2332}" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-4-dead-200-pilgrims-stranded-as-cloudburst-hits-kedarnath-route-746129">India: 4 dead, 200 pilgrims stranded as cloudburst hits Kedarnath route</a>

In her dissent, Justice Trivedi argued that states should not alter the scheduled caste list notified under Article 341 of the Constitution. She&nbsp;maintained that affirmative actions by states must align with constitutional principles. She further asserted that the Supreme Court should not justify state actions through its powers under Article 142.

The court had reserved its verdict on February 8 after hearing arguments for reviewing the 2004 EV Chinnaiah judgement.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday (Aug 1) permitted the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to help uplift the more underprivileged and downtrodden.

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday (Aug 1) permitted the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to help uplift the more underprivileged and downtrodden. A seven-judge constitution bench, led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, delivered this landmark verdict with a 6:1 majority. What does the judgement say? The majority opinion, articulated through six separate judgements, states that subclassification must be based on "quantifiable and demonstrable data" provided by the states. This seeks to ensure that the process is not arbitrary. Also read | Video: Woman on bike harassed by men on flooded road in Lucknow; 4 arrested With this ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overruled its previous 2004 judgement in the EV Chinnaiah case, which held that SCs and STs are homogenous groups that cannot be further subdivided for quotas. The bench, comprising justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Mishra, reviewed 23 petitions, including a prominent one filed by the Punjab government. The government had challenged a 2010 verdict by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Chief Justice Chandrachud, joined by Justice Misra, wrote the lead opinion while four other judges provided similar judgements. Justice Trivedi dissented. Justice Gavai, in a separate verdict, emphasised the need for states to identify and exclude the "creamy layer" within SCs and STs from reservation benefits. Also read | India: 4 dead, 200 pilgrims stranded as cloudburst hits Kedarnath route In her dissent, Justice Trivedi argued that states should not alter the scheduled caste list notified under Article 341 of the Constitution. She maintained that affirmative actions by states must align with constitutional principles. She further asserted that the Supreme Court should not justify state actions through its powers under Article 142. The court had reserved its verdict on February 8 after hearing arguments for reviewing the 2004 EV Chinnaiah judgement. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court of India backs sub-classification for SCs and STs in 6:1 verdict. Here's what it means

The Jammu and Kashmir government today told the Supreme Court that Major Aditya Kumar was not named as an accused in the FIR of the January 27 Shopian firing incident in which three civilians were killed.

Taking on record the statement of the state government, the apex court said there should be no investigation till April 24 in the case.

&quot;Let the matter be listed for final disposal on April 24. In the meantime, there shall be no investigation on the basis of FIR till then,&quot; a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said.

The apex court had on February 12 restrained the Jammu and Kashmir police from taking any &quot;coercive steps&quot; against Army officers, including Major Aditya Kumar, who was earlier reportedly named as accused in the case.

Three civilians were killed when Army personnel fired at a stone-pelting mob in Ganovpora village of Shopian on January 27 this year, prompting the chief minister to order an inquiry into the incident.

The FIR was registered against personnel of 10 Garhwal Rifles under sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Ranbir Penal Code (the penal code applicable in Jammu and Kashmir).

The apex court was hearing the plea of Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh, the father of Major Aditya Kumar, seeking to quash the FIR against his son.

Singh had said in his petition that his son, a major in 10 Garhwal Rifles, was &quot;wrongly and arbitrarily&quot; named in the FIR as the incident relates to an Army convoy that was on bona fide military duty in an area under AFSPA and was isolated by an &quot;unruly and deranged&quot; mob pelting stones, causing damage to military vehicles.

During the hearing today, the counsel representing Jammu and Kashmir told the bench that Major Aditya was not named as accused anywhere in the FIR.

&nbsp;

Supreme court has halted the investigation till April 24 in the case

The Jammu and Kashmir government today told the Supreme Court that Major Aditya Kumar was not named as an accused in the FIR of the January 27 Shopian firing incident in which three civilians were killed. Taking on record the statement of the state government, the apex court said there should be no investigation till April 24 in the case. "Let the matter be listed for final disposal on April 24. In the meantime, there shall be no investigation on the basis of FIR till then," a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said. The apex court had on February 12 restrained the Jammu and Kashmir police from taking any "coercive steps" against Army officers, including Major Aditya Kumar, who was earlier reportedly named as accused in the case. Three civilians were killed when Army personnel fired at a stone-pelting mob in Ganovpora village of Shopian on January 27 this year, prompting the chief minister to order an inquiry into the incident. The FIR was registered against personnel of 10 Garhwal Rifles under sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of the Ranbir Penal Code (the penal code applicable in Jammu and Kashmir). The apex court was hearing the plea of Lieutenant Colonel Karamveer Singh, the father of Major Aditya Kumar, seeking to quash the FIR against his son. Singh had said in his petition that his son, a major in 10 Garhwal Rifles, was "wrongly and arbitrarily" named in the FIR as the incident relates to an Army convoy that was on bona fide military duty in an area under AFSPA and was isolated by an "unruly and deranged" mob pelting stones, causing damage to military vehicles. During the hearing today, the counsel representing Jammu and Kashmir told the bench that Major Aditya was not named as accused anywhere in the FIR.

Shopian case: J&K says Major Aditya not named as accused, Supreme Court halts probe

d-y-chandrachud

D Y Chandrachud, News on D Y Chandrachud, stories on D Y Chandrachud, articles on D Y Chandrachud, D Y Chandrachud stories at Wion, D Y Chandrachud news, D Y Chandrachud latest news

d y-chandrachud

Supreme Court of India backs sub-classification for SCs and STs in 6:1 verdict. Here's what it means

Shopian case: J&K says Major Aditya not named as accused, Supreme Court halts probe