Nuances of Caste Reservation in India|UPSC Editorial
The judgment pronounced in the case titled State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh is to be decided by a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India. The judgment is significant as it would determine the fate of affirmative action and reservation under the Indian Constitution. Studies have shown that though SCs and STs are thought to be homogeneous groups, there are a lot of differences within the groupings. Some castes suffer from more discrimination than others.
The question arises whether state governments have the competence to review such differences among sub-groups. Hopefully, the judgment in the case of Davinder Singh will bring clarity to this much-muddled area of law. In this regard, the central government has set up a high-level committee under the chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary to devise a way to distribute the benefits, schemes, and initiatives equitably to the most deprived communities. This is a step taken to ensure that the benefit accruing from affirmative action reaches the needy.
Sub-Categorization within Castes
Sub-categorization within castes means the bifurcation of a broad category into smaller groups like SCs, STs, and OBCs to address intra-group inequalities by fairly distributing the 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 salient purpose of sub-categorization is to achieve a more egalitarian system wherein reservation and affirmative action benefits percolate down to the most deprived sections of SCs, STs, and OBCs.
Sub-categorization has been done in such a way as to curtail the Reservation System so that more fortunate sub-groups within these categories do not dominate and that assistance should reach those who deserve it most.
Competence of States in Creating Sub-Classifications for Reservation
Arguments in Favor of State Competence
Articles 15(4) and 16(4): The States can make special provisions for the advancement of backward classes, including SCs and STs; reservation in education and employment to promote their well-being.
Constitutional Support and Judicial Support: There is constitutional backing and judicial support for the sub-categorization within castes. For instance, Article 16(4) states that the state is empowered to provide reservation in promotions for SCs and STs, especially when these groups are underrepresented.
Articles 341(1) and 342(1): Specify that the President, after consulting the Governor, specified the castes or tribes, which were deemed to be SCs and STs respectively. It implies a high-level mechanism for identifying and classifying backward classes.
Arguments Against State Competence
Chinnaiah Judgement: A division bench of the Supreme Court had, in this judgment, struck down an Andhra Pradesh law classifying SCs into four sub-classes to extend separate quotas. While delivering its verdict, the apex court clarified that only Parliament can amend the Presidential Order listing SCs and STs under Article 341.
State Authority Limitation: According to the above judgment, state governments are not empowered to modify the presidential list of SCs and STs. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had cautioned that once the power to modify the list was given to states, such modifications could happen on political grounds rather than based on actual 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
Redressal of Inequality: SCs and STs are not homogeneous entities, and there is immense inequality within themselves. Thus, sub-categorization makes sure that the benefits accruing from schemes and policies are better distributed among different subgroups.
Distributive Justice: The state resources and opportunities will not be concentrated among a few but be distributed across various underprivileged communities.
Smaller Inequality: Sub-categorization is considered the way forward for achieving equity through fairness, extending equal benefit cover in proportion to the extent of the disadvantage suffered by these groups.
Empirical Validation: Several commissions, one among which is the Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission in 1997, recorded recommendations towards making divisions within the SCs into distinct groups effectively to undertake reservation policies. It kept the ‘Creamy Layer’ out of reservation benefits, too.
Arguments Against Sub-categorisation
Inviolability of SC/ST Status: Critics argue that SCs and STs should not be subdivided 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-categorization 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-categorization could lead to greater social cohesion and justice among historically marginalized communities.
SC Sub-Categorization 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 (Rationalization 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-category 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’s 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 judgment from the K.C. Vasanth Kumar & Another vs State of Karnataka case in 1985.
Justice Reddy 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), recognizes 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 judgment by a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court supported by recommendations of a special committee will lead to carving the future course in the finer categorization of Scheduled Castes. The moment is a significant one: the Court stood by the spirit laid down in the famous judgment in the case of N.M. Thomas, wherein clarified that while the government may create reservations, it must also ensure that the reservations encourage the creation of real equality envisioned for citizens under the Constitution.
Therefore, any power entrusted to state governments for implementing special provisions within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be considered part of the very crucial process of fulfilling the promise of equal opportunity.
Caste Reservation UPSC Notes
1. A seven-judge bench is hearing the case of State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh, underscoring the significance of this case in deciding the fate of affirmative action and reservations in India. 2. Sub-categorization means the bifurcation of larger caste categories into smaller groups, such as SCs, STs, and OBCs, so that inequalities within groups could be undone and benefits percolate down to the most disadvantaged within each category. 3. A 2004 judgement in E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh is in contrast with the 2020 judgement in State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh on whether states are competent in the matter of sub-categorization. 4. While Articles 15(4) and 16(4) empower the states to make provisions for backward classes, Article 341 states that the lists of SCs and STs can be amended by the Parliament only. 5. Central Government has constituted a high-level committee to develop ways and means for equitable distribution of affirmative action benefits to the most deprived communities. 6. Constitutional Support was termed as an ‘instrument of distributive justice’ whereby State resources and opportunities must be equitably distributed to the underprivileged. 7. The future course of reservation policy thus depends upon the judgement that the Supreme Court will shortly deliver, based upon what the central government does, as a target for the most deprived amongst SCs and STs.