Sub Categorisation in Scheduled Caste Reservation

August 2, 2024

General Studies Paper -2

Context

Recently, the Supreme Court of India allowed the sub-categorisation of scheduled castes in reservations, allowing wider protection for underrepresented groups in a 6:1 landmark verdict.

Background

v In 2004, the Supreme Court held that sub-classification among Scheduled Castes for the purpose of reservation would violate the right to equality.

v At that time, the court emphasised that the SC list must be treated as a single, homogenous group. However, fast forward to 2024, and we find ourselves re-examining this issue.

v In the last two decades, States like Punjab, Bihar, and Tamil Nadu have tried to bring in reservation laws at the State level in a bid to sub-categorise Scheduled Castes.

Roots of the Case

v The case has its origins in 1975 when the Punjab government issued a notification dividing its 25% SC reservation into two categories.

v The first category reserved seats solely for the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities, which were economically and educationally backward.

v The second category included the rest of the SC communities.

v Legal challenges arose when a similar law introduced by Andhra Pradesh in 2000 was struck down by a five-judge Constitution Bench in 2004.

Legality of Sub-categorisation

v E. V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh (2004): The Supreme Court through its 5-Judge Bench held that once a community is included in the Presidential List for Scheduled Castes under Article 341 of the Constitution, they become part of a single larger class of people, casting a wide net for the purposes of reservation.

v It held that the State did not have the legislative power to create sub-classifications within this single class and that such an action would violate the Right to Equality.

v However, all plans are held up in courts as the Supreme Court forms its larger Constitution Bench (in Davinder Singh Case) to decide the matter.

Committees for Sub-categorisation

v Committee of Secretaries: It is a five members committee comprising the Secretaries of the Home Ministry, Law Ministry, Tribal Affairs Ministry, and Social Justice Ministry and it is chaired by the Cabinet Secretary.

1. Mandate: To look at strategies like special initiatives, focusing existing schemes towards them, etc.

2. The Committee needs not to deviate into policy matters like reservation or break-up of SC quota for employment and education.

3. There is no deadline given to present its findings. However, it has been asked to do so at the earliest.

Previous Commissions

v Justice P. Ramachandra Raju Commission (1996)

v National Commission (2007)

Sub-Categorisation within Scheduled Castes

The Supreme Court addressed whether sub-classification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is permissible for the purpose of reservation.
This ruling has crucial consequences for states that aim to provide broader protection to certain castes that are significantly underrepresented compared to the so-called dominant scheduled castes.

2004 Judgment Revisited

The bench is revisiting its 2004 judgement in the case of EV Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh.
In that judgement, the court had held that Scheduled Castes formed a homogenous group, and therefore, no sub-division among them was permissible.
Now, the court is reconsidering whether this ruling needs to be modified.

Significance of Recent Judgements

Graded Inequalities: The principal argument for sub-categorisation of SCs has been the graded inequalities among SC communities.
The thrust of it has been that even among the marginalised, there are communities that have lesser access to basic facilities.
Unequal Representation: Some communities are more backward and have less representation than others.
- For instance, the Madiga community has claimed that the benefits, including that of reservation, meant for the SC category had been cornered by the Mala community, with the Madigas being left out.
Legal Standpoint: A five-judge Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra has affirmed the competence of the States to give preferential treatment to the weakest among the Scheduled Castes without depriving other castes of any benefit.
- The Court has noted that the Scheduled Castes list contains many castes and cannot be treated as a homogeneous group.
Equitable Distribution of Benefits: The Union government has formed a committee of Secretaries to evaluate and work out a method for the equitable distribution of benefits, schemes, and initiatives to the most backward communities amongst the over 1,200 Scheduled Castes across the country.
Recognizing Diversity: The court acknowledged that ‘historical and empirical evidence indicates that Scheduled castes are not a homogenous class’
- This recognition of diversity within the SC community is a departure from the earlier stance.

Possible Challenges of Sub Categorisation within Scheduled Castes

These are primarily based on the legal and practical challenges associated with it.
Legal Challenges: The Supreme Court held that the State did not have the power to unilaterally sub-categorise communities in the list of SCs or Scheduled Tribes (STs).
- The Constitution has provided that these lists can only be made by Parliament and notified by the President.
Data of socio-economic status: The population data related to SC, ST, and OBC categories are not updated since the 2011 census.
- It hampers the objective and scientific basis for sub-categorisation.
Untouchability: The social and educational backwardness cannot be applied to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The special treatment is given to the SCs due to untouchability with which they have suffered since ages.

Scheduled Castes in India

v As per the 2011 Census, the total population of SCs in India is 16.6% (16.2% in 2001 Census) of the total population of India.

v Article 341 of Constitution of India defines Scheduled Caste with respect to any State or Union Territory.

v Constitutional Provisions

v Article 14: Guarantees equality before law.

v Article 15 (4): The state is empowered to make any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled castes.

v Article 16(4), 16 (4A) and 16 (4B): Provide for reservation in posts and services.

v Article 17: Untouchability stands abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden.

v Article 23: It emphasises the importance of protecting individual freedom and dignity.

v Article 24: It prohibits the employment of children below the age of 14 years in any factory, mine, or hazardous occupation.

v Article 46: Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections.

v Article 330: Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People.

v Article 335: It permits laws that reduce the requirements or relax qualifications for members of SC/ST communities in appointments to public services and posts.

v Other Statutory Provisions

v RFCTLARR Act, 2013: Special provisions have been made for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under Sections 41 and 42 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 which protect their interests.

v Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1898: This legislation was designed to provide a measure of protection to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to enforce their rights.

Conclusion

The recent verdict allows state governments to sub-classify SCs for granting reservation benefits in admissions and public jobs. It overturns the earlier ruling that restricted such sub-categorization.
It recognises the need to address the varying levels of disadvantage within the SC community and provides a more nuanced approach to reservation policies. It’s a step toward ensuring equitable opportunities for all.