Resources › CA MCQ Practice
28 May 2026Polity & Governance3 questions

Supreme Court Judgment on Sub-Classification of Scheduled Castes for Reservation Priorities

UPSC-standard MCQs with explanations, trap analysis, and approach guide. Answer after the test — not before.

1

Easy

1

Medium

1

Hard

Practice this set

3 questions · full analysis after submission · no sign-up required

Start test →Read the article first

Article summary

The Supreme Court constitution bench has affirmed the constitutional validity of state governments sub-classifying Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to ensure equitable distribution of reservation benefits. Overruling the 2004 EV Chinnaiah judgment, the Court established that SCs do not constitute a homogenous macro-class under Article 341. States can mathematically identify the most marginalized sub-groups within the Presidential list and allocate priority quotas without altering the original list itself. This landmark ruling directly impacts sub-quota legislation in states like Punjab and Tamil Nadu, triggering a nationwide administrative recalibration of affirmative action rosters to target ultra-marginalized communities.

What this tests

recallTests whether you read the article and retained key facts.
1Q
applicationTests whether you can apply the concept to a new scenario.
1Q
analysisTests whether you can reason across multiple related facts.
1Q

Sample questions — answers revealed after test

Polity & GovernanceRecallEasy

Q1. With reference to the Supreme Court's judgment on sub-classification of Scheduled Castes for reservation, which of the following statements is correct?

AThe Supreme Court overruled the E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) judgment, which had held that Scheduled Castes form an indivisible, homogenous group.
BThe Supreme Court overruled the Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992) judgment, which had capped total reservations at 50% of available posts.
CArticle 341(2) empowers the President to modify the Scheduled Castes list through an executive notification, bypassing Parliamentary approval.
DStates may reserve up to 100% of the SC quota for a single most-backward sub-class, provided such allocation is backed by quantifiable empirical data.
Answer revealed after you submit the test
Polity & GovernanceApplicationMedium

Q2. A state government notifies that the 'Balmiki' community, listed within the Presidential Scheduled Castes notification for that state, shall receive a dedicated 8% sub-quota carved out of the existing 20% SC reservation. The state cites a commission report showing Balmikis constitute less than 2% of SC employees in state services despite forming 18% of the SC population. Which of the following conclusions is most constitutionally defensible in light of the Supreme Court's judgment on SC sub-classification?

AThe notification is constitutionally valid because it is backed by quantifiable empirical data on inadequate representation, and it does not exclude other SC communities from the remaining 12% quota.
BThe notification is constitutionally invalid because any internal preference within the Presidential SC list amounts to an impermissible alteration of the list, which only Parliament can effect under Article 341(2).
CThe notification is constitutionally valid only if the Central Government provides prior concurrence, since the Presidential list under Article 341 is a central instrument that states cannot act upon independently.
DThe notification is constitutionally invalid because Article 16(4) permits reservations only for backward classes as a whole and does not authorize creation of sub-quotas within a single constitutionally recognized category.
Answer revealed after you submit the test
Polity & GovernanceAnalysisHard

Q3. Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional framework governing sub-classification of Scheduled Castes, as interpreted by the Supreme Court: 1. Article 341(1) empowers the President to specify castes as Scheduled Castes in relation to a State, but any subsequent modification to this list requires a Parliamentary law under Article 341(2). 2. The Supreme Court held that state-level sub-classification is constitutionally equivalent to modifying the Presidential SC list, and is therefore impermissible without Parliamentary sanction. 3. Article 16(4) provides the constitutional basis for states to create internal sub-quotas within the SC reservation, provided such sub-classification is grounded in quantifiable data of inadequate representation. 4. Under the Supreme Court's ruling, a State may validly reserve the entirety of its SC quota for a single sub-class if that sub-class can empirically demonstrate the most acute degree of backwardness. Which of the following combinations is correct?

A1 and 3 only
B1, 2 and 3 only
C2 and 4 only
D1, 3 and 4 only
Answer revealed after you submit the test
Practice all 3 questions →All CA MCQ sets