Supreme Court Ruling on Sub-Classification of SCs and STs

Syllabus: Social Justice, Governance

Source: Indian Express

Context: On August 1, 2024, the Supreme Court of India ruled in the case of State of Punjab and Ors Vs Davinder Singh and Ors that states can sub-classify Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to grant additional quotas for the more disadvantaged within these categories.

Timeline of the case:

Timeline | Description

Supreme Court in EV Chinnaiah case (2005) | The court held that Scheduled Castes (SCs) under Article 341(1) formed a homogeneous group and could not be subdivided

Under Article 341(1), the President designates SCs in states and union territories.

Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes Act, 2006 | It mandated that 50% of vacancies reserved for SCs in direct recruitment be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, contingent on their availability.

Punjab High Court Ruling (2010) | The Punjab and Haryana High Court (2010) struck down the provision of the Punjab act based on the EV Chinniah ruling, which relied on Article 341, stating that only the President can classify SCs.

SC in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2020) | The sub-classification issue of Scheduled Castes (SCs) was referred to a seven-judge bench from a five-judge bench

Historical Context:

• Indra Sawhney Case (1992): Established the ‘creamy layer’ concept for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) to ensure benefits reach the most disadvantaged.

• Differences from SC/ST: The creamy layer concept has traditionally been applied to OBCs, and its adaptation to SC/ST groups is complex due to historical caste injustices.

What did the 7 judge bench of SC order now?

• Judgment Overview:

• Sub-Classification Allowed: States can now create sub-categories within SCs and STs for more targeted reservations. Creamy Layer Inclusion: The Court emphasized the need to exclude the ‘creamy layer’—more advantaged members—within SC and ST groups from affirmative action benefits. Empirical Study Requirement: States must conduct studies before implementing sub-classification, and their decisions are subject to judicial review.

• Sub-Classification Allowed: States can now create sub-categories within SCs and STs for more targeted reservations.

• Creamy Layer Inclusion: The Court emphasized the need to exclude the ‘creamy layer’—more advantaged members—within SC and ST groups from affirmative action benefits.

• Empirical Study Requirement: States must conduct studies before implementing sub-classification, and their decisions are subject to judicial review.

• Potential Criteria for SC/ST Creamy Layer: Educational and Socio-Economic Factors: The criteria may include educational background, similar to the OBC model but adjusted for SC/ST contexts

• Educational and Socio-Economic Factors: The criteria may include educational background, similar to the OBC model but adjusted for SC/ST contexts

• The state cannot earmark 100% reservation for a sub-class while allowing sub-classification

• The State’s power to sub-classify is subject to judicial review.

• Sub-classification does not violate the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 and the President’s exclusive authority under Article 341 to identify SCs.

Constitutional Provision: 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.

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