Nuances of Reservation Within Caste Groups in India: An In-Depth Analysis

This editorial draws from an article titled “Intra-group caste variances, equality and the Court’s gaze,” published in The Hindu on March 13, 2024. It discusses whether state governments can make special provisions in public employment for certain subgroups within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, recognizing some groups as more disadvantaged than others. The aim is to ensure fair representation for all sections within these communities.


The Supreme Court of India, consisting of seven judges, is set to make a crucial decision in the case of State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh. This verdict is significant as it pertains to the future of affirmative action and reservation policies under the Indian Constitution. Research shows that although Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) are generally seen as homogenous groups, there are notable differences within these categories. Some castes endure more discrimination than others.

This raises an important question: Should state governments have the authority to address these disparities among sub-groups? The upcoming judgement in the Davinder Singh case could provide much-needed clarity and potentially reform a complex area of law. In response to these concerns, the central government has established a high-level committee led by the Cabinet Secretary. This committee is tasked with devising a strategy to fairly distribute benefits, schemes, and initiatives among the most disadvantaged communities. This step is aimed at ensuring that the benefits of affirmative action reach those who need them the most.

Understanding Sub-Categorisation within Castes

Overview

  • Sub-categorisation within castes is the division of broader caste categories like Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) into smaller groups.
  • This approach is designed to address inequalities within these categories by ensuring a fair distribution of benefits and opportunities to the most disadvantaged groups.

Legal Context

  • Past Attempts: States such as Punjab, Bihar, and Tamil Nadu have implemented sub-categorisation. These attempts have often been challenged legally, escalating to the Supreme Court for resolution.
  • Constitutional Challenges: A significant ruling in 2004 (E.V.Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others) determined that only the Indian Parliament can create and revise lists of SC and ST communities. Conversely, a 2020 ruling (State of Punjab and Others vs Davinder Singh and Others) allowed states some leeway in determining the distribution of benefits among the already notified categories without altering the lists themselves.
  • Current Legal Status: The apparent contradiction between the 2004 and 2020 rulings has led to the 2020 decision being referred to a larger bench for further evaluation.

Purpose and Impact

  • The main goal of sub-categorisation is to promote a more equitable system where the benefits of reservation and affirmative action reach the most marginalized members within SCs, STs, and OBCs.
  • By fine-tuning the reservation system, it aims to prevent dominance by more affluent sub-groups within these categories, ensuring that aid reaches those who need it most.

Competence of States in Creating Sub-Classifications for Reservation

Arguments in Favor of State Competence:

  • Articles 15(4) and 16(4): States are empowered to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). This includes reservations in education and employment to promote their welfare.
  • Constitutional and Judicial Support: There is both constitutional backing and judicial support for the sub-categorization within castes. The state can provide reservations in promotions for SCs and STs under Article 16(4), particularly when these groups are underrepresented.
  • Presidential Power under Articles 341(1) and 342(1): These articles allow the President, after consulting the Governor, to specify which castes or tribes are considered SCs and STs. This implies a mechanism for identifying and categorizing backward classes at a high level.

Arguments Against State Competence:

  • Chinnaiah Judgement: The Supreme Court in this case struck down an Andhra Pradesh law that divided SCs into four sub-categories for separate quotas. The judgment emphasized that only Parliament has the authority to modify the list of SCs and STs, as stated in Article 341.
  • Limitations on State Authority: According to this judgment, state governments do not have the power to alter the presidential list of SCs and STs. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had cautioned that allowing states to amend the list could lead to changes based on political motives, rather than genuine need.

Identification of SC/ST in India

  • The Constitution of India does not list specific castes or tribes as Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Instead, this responsibility is assigned to the President under Article 341.
  • The identification of SCs and STs can vary by state; a caste recognized as SC in one state might not be recognized as such in another.

Arguments Supporting Sub-categorisation

  • Addressing Inequality: Since SCs and STs are not homogeneous groups and exhibit significant internal inequalities, sub-categorisation aims to distribute benefits more equitably across various sub-groups.
  • Distributive Justice: This method ensures that state resources and opportunities do not accumulate among a few but are distributed evenly across all deprived communities.
  • Enhanced Fairness: Sub-categorisation is considered necessary to uphold the principle of equality by providing proportional benefits based on varying degrees of disadvantage within these communities.
  • Empirical Support: Several commissions, including the Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission of 1997, have recommended sub-dividing SCs into distinct groups to tailor reservation policies more effectively. This commission also suggested excluding the ‘Creamy Layer’ from reservation benefits.

Arguments Against Sub-categorisation

  • Inviolability of SC/ST Status: Critics argue that SCs and STs should not be sub-divided further as they are recognized based on historical injustices like untouchability, rather than mere social and educational backwardness.
  • Legal Precedence: In landmark cases like N.M. Thomas vs State of Kerala (1976), the Supreme Court recognized SCs not as mere castes but as distinct classes, suggesting a unified approach to their treatment.
  • Political Manipulation: There is a concern that sub-categorisation might lead to political exploitation, with policies being shaped to gain favor with particular sub-groups rather than addressing broader social justice.

Additional Considerations

  • Implementation Challenges: Implementing sub-categorisation requires careful consideration to avoid exacerbating existing disparities within these groups.
  • Potential for Increased Cohesion: While there are risks of political manipulation, if implemented thoughtfully, sub-categorisation could lead to greater social cohesion and justice among historically marginalized communities.

Overview of SC Sub-Categorisation Legal Timeline in Punjab

1975 Notification

  • The Punjab government initiated a division of its 25% SC reservation into two categories, marking an early instance of sub-classification by a state.
  • This division lasted nearly three decades but encountered legal challenges in 2004.

2004 Legal Challenges

  • The Supreme Court invalidated the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000, in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh. This judgment highlighted that the SC list should be viewed as a single, homogeneous entity, thus affecting similar actions in other states.
  • Following this, the Punjab & Haryana High Court struck down the 1975 Punjab notification, aligning with the Supreme Court’s decision.

2006 Punjab Legislation

  • Punjab attempted to reintroduce SC sub-categorisation through the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006.
  • However, this act was also struck down in 2010, continuing the legal standoff.

2014 Supreme Court Review

  • The matter was escalated to a five-judge Supreme Court bench to reassess the validity of the 2004 E.V. Chinnaiah decision, questioning if SCs could indeed be treated as a single group.

2020 Constitutional Bench Decision

  • The Supreme Court’s Constitution bench concluded that the 2004 decision required reconsideration, recognizing disparities within the SC list itself.
  • The court suggested exploring the application of a “creamy layer” concept to SCs and STs, acknowledging intra-group inequalities.

Current Status

  • A larger seven-judge bench is now deliberating the issue, with their decision necessary to override the prior rulings by smaller benches.
  • The outcomes of this legal process will significantly affect various communities across multiple states, including Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs in Punjab, and other groups like Madiga, Paswans, Jatavs, and Arundhatiyars in different states.

Developments in the Davinder Singh Case

Reference to Indra Sawhney Judgement

  • The Supreme Court revisited its decision from the Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case in 1992, which stemmed from the Mandal Commission’s report.
  • A significant point from this case was that the court allowed sub-classifications within the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) for government services, marking it permissible.

Endorsement of K.C. Vasanth Kumar Case Judgement

  • The court majority supported Justice Chinnappa Reddy’s judgement from the K.C. Vasanth Kumar & Another vs State Of Karnataka case in 1985.
  • Justice Reddy had opined that sub-classifications into backward and more backward classes are justified, especially if there is a significant disparity in their socio-economic status compared to more advanced classes.
  • This approach was seen as necessary to ensure equitable distribution of opportunities, preventing slightly more advanced groups within the backward classes from monopolizing benefits meant for all backward classes.
  • Without such sub-classifications, there was a risk that the most advanced classes would dominate the general category seats, leaving none for any backward classes.

Ensuring Substantive Equality

  • The Constitution of India promises substantive equality, acknowledging historical discrimination based on caste.
  • This vision demands recognition of group interests to ensure everyone is treated equally.
  • Reservations are not seen as exceptions to equality but as tools to enhance and solidify it.

Role of State Governments

  • Supreme Court rulings, such as in the case of State Of Kerala vs N.M. Thomas (1975), recognize the power and duty of state governments to address discrimination and ensure fair treatment through reservations.
  • For example, if studies in Punjab show that Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs haven’t benefited enough from existing reservations, the state must adjust its measures to better serve these groups.

Interpreting Article 341

  • Article 341 should not be seen as preventing the sub-classification of caste groups; it only restricts state governments from altering the President’s list of Scheduled Castes (SCs).
  • States can provide specific measures for certain castes within this list without changing the list itself, ensuring those castes still receive general reservation benefits.

Reasonable Classification

  • The sub-classification within the President’s list, like that seen in Punjab for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, aligns with the constitutional principle that reasonable classifications are valid if they help achieve equality.
  • This approach recognizes varying levels of backwardness within the SCs, allowing for more targeted support where it is most needed.

Evaluating Sub-Classifications

  • When assessing the need for sub-classifications, it’s crucial to consider whether different groups within the SCs and Scheduled Tribes (STs) have distinct needs and development levels.
  • The courts must verify if such distinctions justify the preferential treatment based on the law’s goal to ensure fairness and equal opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups.

Conclusion

The upcoming decision from a seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court, along with recommendations from a special committee, will shape the future of categorizing Scheduled Castes in finer detail. This is a significant moment, echoing the principles upheld in the landmark N.M. Thomas case, where the Court acknowledged that not only can governments create reservations, but they also must ensure that these measures foster true equality, as envisioned by the Constitution.

Therefore, any power given to state governments to implement special provisions for the most marginalized within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be viewed as a crucial step towards realizing the promise of equal opportunity for all.

April 15, 2024 by Published by THE HINDU