Sub-classification within SCs and STs
Kartavya Desk Staff
#### GS Paper 2
Syllabus: Polity: Affirmative Action
Source: TH
Context: The forthcoming judgment in the State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh case by a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India holds significant implications for affirmative action and reservations under the Constitution.
At the heart of the matter is the question of whether State governments can sub-classify within Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) for public employment recruitment.
What is Sub-categorization within castes?
It involves creating sub-groups within Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) for reservation and affirmative action purposes.
Aim: This process aims to address intra-category inequalities and ensure a fairer distribution of benefits and opportunities among marginalized communities.
Sub-classification will affect communities nationwide, such as Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs in Punjab, Madiga in Andhra Pradesh, Paswans in Bihar, Jatavs in UP, and Arundhatiyars in Tamil Nadu.
Background of the present case:
In the Past attempts at sub-categorization, States like Punjab, Bihar, and Tamil Nadu have faced legal challenges, reaching the Supreme Court. The Court, in the 2004 E.V. Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh case, emphasized that only Parliament has the authority to create and notify SC and ST lists. It was also cited that, B.R. Ambedkar, in his speech, had cautioned against allowing State governments to amend the list due to potential political motivations was highlighted.
However, in the 2020 State of Punjab and Others vs Davinder Singh and Others case, a five-judge Bench ruled that states could determine the extent of benefits within the existing lists without altering them significantly. This ruling contradicts the 2004 decision and has led to the 2020 judgment being referred to a larger Bench for further clarification.
Competence of States for Creating Sub-Classification
States have the authority to provide reservation benefits to SCs and STs under Articles 15(4) and 16(4), and Articles 341(1) and 342(1).
• Article 15(4) empowers states to create special arrangements for socially and educationally backward classes like SCs and STs.
• Article 16(4) allows States to make provisions for reservation in promotion if SCs and STs are underrepresented in state services.
• Articles 341(1) and 342(1) permit the President, with consultation, to specify SCs and STs, including parts of these groups.
However, the Chinnaiah judgement (2004) invalidated the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000, for contravening Article 341. The Court emphasized that only Parliament has the authority to modify the SC and ST lists specified under Article 341.
Sub-categorize Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are needed:
• Addressing Intra-Group Inequalities: E.g., In Telangana, the Madiga Reservation Porata Samiti (MRPS) is advocating for the internal reclassification of Scheduled Caste reservations. Despite constituting around 50% of the SC population in the state, Madigas feel their representation is being overshadowed by the dominance of another SC community, the Malas.
• Equitable Distribution of Benefits: It prevents the concentration of benefits in the hands of a few dominant groups and promotes broader social inclusion.
• Constitutional Mandate: Articles 15(4), 16(4), 341(1), and 342(1) of the Constitution empower states to create special arrangements and provisions for the welfare of socially and educationally backward classes, including SCs and STs
• Empowerment of State Governments: Sub-categorization grants autonomy to state governments to tailor reservation policies according to the specific socio-economic conditions and needs of different sub-groups within SCs and STs, promoting localized and targeted affirmative action measures.
• Enhancing Social Mobility: Sub-categorization enables targeted measures to empower disadvantaged groups, fostering social mobility through education, employment, and political representation.
Challenges with Sub-Categorization of Caste:
• Inequality within Scheduled Castes: Sub-categorization may not effectively address disparities, as the most backward communities may still remain marginalized despite a separate quota.
• Federalism Issue: There’s a constitutional dilemma regarding the authority of states to sub-categorize SCs and STs, with conflicting judgments from the Supreme Court on whether states have this power.
• Identification and Criteria: Determining criteria for sub-categorization, such as socio-economic status or educational attainment, poses challenges due to the lack of consensus.
• Data Accuracy: Obtaining accurate socio-economic data for different communities is difficult, hindering the decision-making process.
• Intra-group Disputes: Sub-categorization may lead to internal conflicts and tensions among SC communities, potentially marginalizing certain groups from benefits.
• Possibility of Fragmentation: There’s a risk that sub-categorization could weaken the collective identity and strength of the community, leading to political and social fragmentation.
Suggestions for Sub-Classifying Caste Groups:
• Need for Wider Reading of Article 341: Article 341 does not prohibit sub-classification, allowing states to provide special measures within the SC list.
• Following Reasonable Classification: Reasonable classifications, such as sub-categorization for inter-se backwardness, are permissible under the Constitution.
• Judging Sub-Classification on Its Own Merits: Sub-classification should be judged based on its merits, ensuring fair treatment for different caste groups.
• Exploring Alternatives: Legal options, such as constitutional amendments, can facilitate sub-categorization, as suggested by the Attorney General of India and expert committees.
• Data Collection and Analysis: Comprehensive data collection on the socio-economic conditions of caste communities is crucial for formulating effective policies.
• Concept of Creamy-Layer: The concept of creamy layer, applied to SC and ST promotions since 2018, ensures reservation benefits reach those most in need.
• Criteria Development: Transparent criteria considering socio-economic status, education, and regional disparities are essential for sub-categorization.
• Following the Middle Path: Balancing recognition of diversity within SCs and STs with maintaining community unity is crucial for effective policies without causing fragmentation.
Committee Recommendations:
• Justice P. Ramachandra Raju Commission (1996): Recommended sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes in Andhra Pradesh
• National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC): Advocated for measures to address intra-group disparities and
• National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST): Highlighted the need to prioritize existing schemes and government benefits to reach the most backward sections of Scheduled Tribes before considering sub-categorization.
• Usha Mehra Committee (2008): Proposed the inclusion of Clause (3) in Article 341 through a constitutional amendment, empowering state legislatures to enact reclassification of the Scheduled Caste category, subject to Presidential confirmation.
• Justice G. Rohini headed the Commission for the Sub-categorisation of Other Backward Classes (OBC): Report submitted in August 2023
Conclusion:
Sub-categorizing Scheduled Castes is crucial for addressing internal disparities and ensuring targeted social justice. However, it requires careful consideration of constitutional provisions, data accuracy, and potential challenges to uplift marginalized communities effectively
Insta Links
• Sub-categorization of Other Backward Classes
Mains Links
What are the two major legal initiatives by the State since Independence addressing discrimination against Scheduled Tribes (STs)? (UPSC 2017)
Prelims Links:
Consider the following organizations/bodies in India: (UPSC 2023)
• The National Commission for Backward Classes
• The National Human Rights Commission
• The National Law Commission
• The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
How many of the above constitutional bodies?
(a) Only one (b) Only two (c) Only three (d) All four
Ans: A
With reference to the ‘Changpa’ community of India, consider the following statements: (UPSC 2014)
• They live mainly in the State of Uttarakhand.
• They rear the Pashmina goats that yield a fine wool.
• They are kept in the category of Scheduled Tribes.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3
Ans: B