Understanding Supreme Court Verdict on Sub-Classification of SC ,ST | UPSC

Introduction

• In a landmark judgement, a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has reframed how the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) quota may operate — for the very first time since reservations were introduced in the Constitution in 1950.
• In a 6:1 ruling, the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud permitted states to create sub-classifications within the SC and ST categories for the purpose of according wider protections through fixed sub-quotas  to the most backward communities within these categories. 

What is Sub Categorisation of Caste?

• • • It refers to further classifying broader caste groups into sub-groups based on various criteria. 
    • Some castes have sought recognition and specific privileges based on their unique characteristics, historical backgrounds, or socio-economic status.

Reservation in India: Constitutional Provisions 

• • • Article 15(4): Special provision for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
    • Article 16(4): Provision for the reservation of appointments in favor of any backward class of citizens.
    • Article 16(4A): Reservation in the promotion of posts in services under the state for members of the SCs and STs. 
    • Article 16(4B): State can fill unfilled vacancies reserved for SCs/STs in the following year.
    • Article 39A: State has to ensure justice and free legal aid to weaker sections of the society
    • Article 243D: Reservation for SCs/STs and Women in Panchayati Raj Institutions
    • Article 243T: Reservation for SCs/STs and Women in Urban Local Bodies
    • Article 330 and Article 332: Reservation of seats for the SCs and the STs in the Parliament and in the State Legislative Assemblies respectively.

Famous Committee Reports on Sub-Classification of SCs and STs

• • • Justice Usha Mehra Commission (2012): The commission was set up to examine the status of SCs and STs, focusing on identifying the most disadvantaged groups within these categories. It recommended sub-classification to ensure equitable distribution of reservation benefits.
    • National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) Reports: The NCSC has periodically published reports highlighting the need for sub-classification to address disparities within SCs. These reports emphasize the varying levels of backwardness and advocate for targeted policies.
    • Justice Ranganath Misra Commission (2007): This commission focused on the status of socially and economically backward classes among religious and linguistic minorities, recommending sub-classification within SCs to ensure that benefits reach the most disadvantaged.

Data on SCs and STs in India

Scheduled Castes (SCs):

• • • Population: According to the Census of 2011, the Scheduled Caste population in India is approximately 201.4 million, which constitutes about 16.6% of the total population.
    • Distribution: The states with the highest SC population are Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Bihar. Punjab has the highest percentage of SCs in relation to its total population.

Scheduled Tribes (STs): 

• • • Population: As per the Census of 2011, the Scheduled Tribe population is around 104.3 million, making up about 8.6% of the total population.
    • Distribution: The largest ST populations are found in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Odisha. Northeastern states like Mizoram and Nagaland have a high percentage of STs relative to their total population.

Read also: Exploring the Magnificent Forts in India A Historical Journey | UPSC

Supreme Court’s Verdict on Sub-Classification of SCs and STs

Permission for Sub-Classification:

• • The Supreme Court has authorized states to create sub-classifications within Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to target support for the most disadvantaged groups. 
  • This allows for separate quotas within the existing 15% reservation for SCs, addressing varying levels of backwardness among these communities.

Empirical Basis for Sub-Classification:

• • The ruling mandates that sub-classification must be based on empirical data and historical evidence of systemic discrimination, not arbitrary or politically motivated reasons. 
  • States must substantiate their classifications with quantifiable data.

Extension of Creamy Layer Principle to SCs and STs:

• • The Court has extended the ‘creamy layer’ principle, previously applied to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) as highlighted in the Indra Sawhney case, to SCs and STs. 
  • States must identify and exclude affluent individuals within these groups from receiving reservation benefits, ensuring assistance reaches the truly disadvantaged.

Judicial Review of Sub-Classification Decisions:

• • Sub-classification decisions made by states are subject to judicial review to prevent potential misuse for political gain.

Generational Limit to Availing Reservation:

• • The Court noted that reservation benefits should be limited to the first generation of beneficiaries. 
  • If a family member has already availed these benefits and achieved a higher social status, subsequent generations may not qualify for reservation.

Roots of the Case Demanding Sub-Classification of SCs and STs

State Government Efforts:

• • 1975: The Punjab Government issued a notification dividing the 25% SC reservation into categories, reserving a portion specifically for the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities.
  • 2000: The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000, provided an expansive list of SC communities in the state and the quota of reservation benefits provided to each.

Judicial Intervention:

• • E.V. Chinnaiah Case (2004): The Supreme Court struck down the Andhra Pradesh Act, declaring that SCs constitute a homogeneous group and sub-classification within this group was unconstitutional. This was based on the interpretation of Article 341 of the Constitution, suggesting sub-classification would violate the right to equality under Article 14.
  • Dr. Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab (2006): The Punjab & Haryana High Court struck down the 1975 notification.

Calls for Reassessment:

• • States like Punjab have argued that certain groups within the SC category were underrepresented and required additional support. 
  • This led to calls for the Supreme Court to reassess the E.V. Chinnaiah ruling. In 2020, a Constitution Bench acknowledged the need to revisit the 2004 decision.

Judicial Review of E.V. Chinnaiah and New Ruling

• • Recent Ruling (August 1, 2024): The Supreme Court, by a 6-1 majority, allowed states to sub-classify SCs and STs, overturning the E.V. Chinnaiah case precedent. The ruling clarifies that while Article 341 provides a framework for identifying SCs, it does not create a homogenous class devoid of internal differences.

Significance of the Verdict

Enhanced Social Justice through Targeted Reservations:

• • The verdict ensures the most marginalized groups within SC and ST categories receive appropriate support, leading to more effective reservation policies and promoting greater social equity.

Constitutional Validation:

• • The verdict asserts that sub-classification does not violate Articles 14 or 341 of the Constitution. 
  • States have the constitutional authority to identify different degrees of social backwardness and provide targeted reservations.

Acknowledgment of Social Reality:

• • The ruling acknowledges that SCs and STs contain groups of different statuses based on traditional occupations and varying degrees of disadvantage. 
  • For instance, the Bihar caste survey showed significant disparities in higher education attainment among different SC groups.

Need for Data-Driven Policies:

• • The Court emphasized that sub-classification must be backed by quantifiable and demonstrable data, preventing arbitrary decisions.

Precedent for Future Cases:

• • The ruling sets a new legal precedent, allowing states to implement sub-classification policies, potentially leading to more effective and equitable reservation strategies.

Challenges in Ensuring Sub-Classification

Empirical Data Collection:

• • Gathering reliable data on the socio-economic conditions of different sub-castes is resource-intensive and time-consuming. 
  • For example, the Bihar caste survey, which aimed to collect detailed data on caste demographics and socio-economic conditions, required significant financial and human resources and faced logistical challenges.

Criteria for Sub-Classification:

• • Determining appropriate criteria and thresholds to measure backwardness, such as educational attainment and income levels, is complex. 
  • The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000, aimed to create sub-classifications but struggled with setting these criteria accurately due to the diverse socio-economic conditions across the state.

Influence of Political Considerations:

• • There are concerns that sub-classification criteria can be misused for electoral gains. 
  • In Tamil Nadu, political parties have occasionally used caste-based reservations as a tool to secure votes from specific sub-groups, leading to biased and unfair policies that do not necessarily reflect the true socio-economic needs of the community.

Social Tensions:

• • Sub-classification might exacerbate existing social tensions within SC/ST communities, leading to intra-community conflicts. 
  • For example, the proposed sub-classification in Punjab in 1975, which aimed to reserve a portion specifically for the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities, led to significant opposition from other sub-groups within the SC community, feeling unfairly marginalized.

Administrative Burden:

• • Creating, managing, and updating sub-categories would add a significant administrative burden on government agencies. 
  • For instance, the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000, required extensive bureaucratic effort to gather data, implement policies, and subsequently faced legal challenges that added to the administrative complexities.

Read also: Karnataka’s Local Reservation Bill: A Comprehensive Review | UPSC

Way Forward

Consensus Building:

• • Building consensus among political parties, community leaders, and civil society organizations is essential for successful implementation. 
  • For example, in Karnataka, efforts to build consensus on the Lingayat reservation issue involved multiple rounds of discussions with stakeholders, which helped in smoothing the process.

Effective Monitoring and Grievance Redressal:

• • States must establish effective monitoring mechanisms and grievance redressal systems to ensure that the most disadvantaged sub-groups receive adequate support. 
  • For instance, the Telangana government established a dedicated monitoring cell to oversee the implementation of its welfare schemes, ensuring that benefits reached the intended recipients.

Maintaining Social Harmony:

• • Addressing concerns of other marginalized communities to prevent conflicts and maintain social harmony is crucial.
  •  In Maharashtra, the government initiated dialogue with various community leaders to address the concerns of Marathas and other OBCs during the reservation protests, which helped in mitigating social tensions.

Strengthening Administrative Capacity:

• • States must strengthen their administrative and institutional capacity, including training personnel and developing data management systems. 
  • Tamil Nadu’s success in implementing the MBC (Most Backward Classes) reservation policy was partly due to its robust administrative framework and well-trained personnel.

Adequate Financial Resources:

• • Providing adequate financial resources for conducting surveys, implementing sub-classification policies, and monitoring their impact is vital for success. 
  • For example, the Kerala government allocated substantial funds for conducting the socio-economic and caste census, which provided critical data for informed policy-making and effective implementation of sub-classification policies.