The landmark verdict was passed by the bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud by a 6:1 majority, with Justice Bela Trivedi dissenting New Delhi: A seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court today okayed sub-classification within Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories to provide reservation in jobs and education for the more marginalised among backward communities. The landmark verdict was passed by the bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud by a 6:1 majority, with Justice Bela Trivedi dissenting. Six separate judgments were written. The verdict overrules the 2004 judgment of a five-judge Constitution bench in the case of EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh. The other judges on the bench were Justice BR Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Satish Chandra Mishra. During the hearing, the Centre had told the court that it in favour of sub-classification in the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories. The Chief Justice had observed that there was a distinction between "sub-classification" and "sub-categorisation" and held that states may have to sub-categorise reserved category communities to ensure that benefits reach more backward groups. "There are six opinions. mine is for Justice Manoj Misra and me. A majority of us has overruled EV Chinnaiah (verdict) and we hold sub-classification is permitted. Justice Bela trivedi has dissented," he said this morning. "The members of SC/ST categories are not often unable to climb up the ladder due to the systemic discrimination they face. Article 14 permits sub-classification of caste," the Chief Justice said, adding, "Historical and empirical evidence demonstrates that the Scheduled Castes are a socially heterogenous class." Justice BR Gavai said, "I have referred to a speech of Dr BR Ambedkar in 1949 where he said that unless we have social democracy there is no use of political democracy." "Hardships and backwardness suffered by some of the Scheduled Castes is different for each caste. EV Chinnaiah was wrongly decided. It was argued that a party can give reservation to a sub-caste to gain political mileage, but I do not agree with this. The ultimate objective would be to realise real equality," he said. Dissenting with the majority judgment, Justice Trivedi said she does not approve the manner in which a three-judge bench referred it to a larger bench without assigning any reasons. "The three judge bench passed a cryptic and perfunctory order without assigning any reasons. Doctrine of precedents is the core value of our legal system. In the instant case, the reference was made to reconsider EV Chinnaiah without any reasons and that too after 15 years of the judgment. The very reference was itself wrong." The court noted that any sub-classification in backward communities will have to be determined on the basis of empirical data to show that there is an inadequacy of representation.