Sub-Classification of Scheduled Castes

Posted 12 Sep 2024

Updated 14 Sep 2024

4 min read

Why in the News?

Recently, a 7-Judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, in State of Punjab & Others v Davinder Singh & Others case, held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) is permissible to grant separate quotas for more backwards within the SC categories.

More on the News

7-judge Constitution Bench was essentially considering two aspects:
- whether sub-classification within reserved castes be allowed, and
- correctness of the decision in E. V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005), which held that SCs notified under Article 341 formed one homogenous group and could not be sub-categorized further.
Previously, in 2014, the Supreme Court in Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab referred the appeal to reconsider the judgment in E.V. Chinnaiah Case (2004) to a 5-judge Constitution Bench.
- In 2020, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the E.V. Chinnaiah judgement, which prohibited sub-categorization of SCs, requires reconsideration.

An infographic outlining relevant constitutional provisions related to equality, reservations, and sub-classification of Scheduled Castes in India. It includes Article 14, ensuring equality before the law, and Article 15(4), allowing special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes. Article 16(1) guarantees equal employment opportunities, while Article 16(4) permits reservation for underrepresented groups. Article 341(1) empowers the President to specify Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Article 341(2) allows Parliament to modify the SC list through legislation.

Key highlights of the Judgment

Sub-classification within the SCs does not violate Article 341(2) because the castes are not per se included in or excluded from the List.
Scope of sub-classification of SCs:
- Objective of any form of affirmative action including sub-classification is to provide substantive equality of opportunity for the backward classes.
  - Substantive equality refers to the principle that the law must account for the different backgrounds and historical injustices faced by persons or groups.
- State can sub-classify based on inadequate representation of certain castes. However, the State must establish that the inadequacy of representation of a caste/group is because of its backwardness.
- State must collect data on the inadequacy of representation in the “services of the State”.
State cannot act on its whims or political expediency and its decision is amenable to judicial review.
State is not entitled to reserve 100% of the seats available for SCs in favour of a group to the exclusion of other castes in the President’s List.

An infographic titled 'Know the term' describing the term 'Creamy Layer'. It states that the term creamy layer is used to identify members of backward classes who are comparatively forward, economically stable, and more educated and therefore, not eligible for government sponsored educational and professional benefits.

SCs notified under Article 341(1) of the Constitution are heterogeneous groups of castes, races or tribes with varying degrees of backwardness.
Four of the seven judges on the Bench separately opined that the government should extend the “creamy layer principle” to SCs and STs.
- However, the opinions do not constitute a direction to the government to implement the creamy layer concept, as the issue did not directly arise in this case.

An infographic highlighting four key judicial pronouncements related to the "creamy layer" concept in India's reservation policy. It starts with State of Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas (1975), which introduced the term, followed by Indra Sawhney vs. UoI (1992), where the exclusion of the creamy layer from OBC reservations was mandated. E.V. Chinnaiah vs. Andhra Pradesh (2004) ruled against sub-classification of SCs, while Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) upheld the application of the creamy layer concept without altering the Presidential List.

Arguments for sub-classification	Arguments against sub-classification
Substantive equality: Weakest first approach to empower the most marginalised among the SCs and the STs. Governance: Sub-classification would ensure a diverse and efficient governance Heterogeneous groups: Prevalence of diverse groups and their varied struggles and degrees of discrimination within the category of SCs. Legislative competence of Legislatures: Article 341 empowers the President to designate communities as SCs, but after designation, state legislative competence is activated under Articles 246 in light of the Fundamental Rights enshrined under Articles 15(4) and 16(4). Article 246 deals with subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and Legislatures of States.	Unity and solidarity: Could divide the SC community, weakening their collective voice and bargaining power. Purpose of reservation for SCs: Reservation as reparation for historical injustice and not for economic welfare. Stigma of caste discrimination might not fade away with economic mobility: e.g., Oxfam’s India Discrimination Report 2022 highlights caste-based discrimination in access to credit. Data limitations: Absence of credible and comprehensive caste census data of various caste groups. Socio Economic and Caste Census (SECC) 2011 was refused to be made public citing entire dataset is flawed and census unreliable. Potential for misuse: Apprehensions of “potential political tinkering” by parties in power in States to expand vote banks.

Arguments for sub-classification

Arguments against sub-classification

Substantive equality: Weakest first approach to empower the most marginalised among the SCs and the STs.
Governance: Sub-classification would ensure a diverse and efficient governance
Heterogeneous groups: Prevalence of diverse groups and their varied struggles and degrees of discrimination within the category of SCs.
Legislative competence of Legislatures: Article 341 empowers the President to designate communities as SCs, but after designation, state legislative competence is activated under Articles 246 in light of the Fundamental Rights enshrined under Articles 15(4) and 16(4).
- Article 246 deals with subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and Legislatures of States.

Unity and solidarity: Could divide the SC community, weakening their collective voice and bargaining power.
Purpose of reservation for SCs: Reservation as reparation for historical injustice and not for economic welfare.
Stigma of caste discrimination might not fade away with economic mobility: e.g., Oxfam’s India Discrimination Report 2022 highlights caste-based discrimination in access to credit.
Data limitations: Absence of credible and comprehensive caste census data of various caste groups.
- Socio Economic and Caste Census (SECC) 2011 was refused to be made public citing entire dataset is flawed and census unreliable.
Potential for misuse: Apprehensions of “potential political tinkering” by parties in power in States to expand vote banks.

Conclusion

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court judgment, it is crucial for policymakers to engage in comprehensive dialogue with all stakeholders, including SC community representatives, legal experts, and social scientists. In this regard, Government may constitute a commission on the lines of G. Rohini Commission (constituted for sub-categorization OBCs) with an aim to find a solution that addresses disparities within the SC category while preserving the unity and collective progress of the community as a whole.