Context: Telangana has become the first State to notify subcategorisation of Scheduled Castes after the Supreme Court verdict by classifying the 59 sub-castes into three groups for implementation of the reservation.
Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Subcategorisation of SCs: Benefits and Challenges.
Background:
- On 1 August 2024, a seven-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court in the State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh judgement held that sub-classification of SC and ST categories is permissible. Also, States have power to create these sub-classifications.
- Earlier, the Supreme Court in E. V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) had ruled that sub-classification was not permissible in the SC category. The Davinder Singh Judgement has overturned the E. V. Chinnaiah judgement.
- Karnataka has formed a commission headed by (Justice) Nagmohan Das to collect empirical data in this regard.
Present Status of Reserved Categories
- Currently, the entire Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are treated as one large class. There is no sub-categorisation among these communities.
- However, even among the SCs and STs, there are communities which are relatively more backward. Thus, there has been an ongoing demand for allowing sub-categorisation in these communities enabling the relatively backward in these communities to apportion greater benefits.
Constitutional Status of Scheduled Castes
- Article 366 (24): Scheduled Castes are defined to mean such castes, tribes or parts or groups within such castes, races or tribes as deemed under Article 341 of the Constitution.
- Article 341(1): President has given the power to notify castes, races or tribes which shall be deemed to be Scheduled Castes for a State or UT. The President will notify the SCs for a State or UT in consultation with the Governor of the State.
- Article 341(2): Parliament may by law include or exclude any caste, race, or tribe from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in the Presidential notification issued under Article 341(1).
- Articles 342 and Article 342-A relate to notification of STs and SEBCs respectively and contain provisions similar to Article 341.
Judgement in EV Chinnaiah Case (2004)
- The SC held that 'Scheduled Castes' (SCs) notified under Article 341 formed one homogenous group and could not be sub-categorised further.
- Sub-classification would amount to tinkering with the Presidential order issued under Article 341. States have no such power to amend the Presidential order.
- Sub-classification amounts to giving preference to a 'miniscule proportion' of the SCs, over other members of the SCs which would be impermissible under Article 14 (Right to Equality).
- Indira Sawhney judgement permitted the sub-classification of the Other Backward Classes, but this is not applicable to SCs.
Salient Features of Davinder Singh Judgement (2024)
Sub-classification and States interference with SC list:
- In the EV Chinnaiah judgement, the court opined that sub-classification amounts to states tinkering with Presidential List under Article 341. However, in the Davinder Singh Case, the SC (2024) held that sub-classification did not lead to including or excluding any caste through legislation. Thus, did not amount to tinkering with the list.
- Also, States had the legislative power to create sub-classification as it did not amount to tampering with the Presidential List. This power stemmed from Article 15 and Article 16 of the Constitution.
Article 14 of the Constitution
- Article 14 is an amalgamation of two expressions - equality before law and equal protection of laws.
- Equality before law means absence of special privileges for any individual. However, it does not mean that the same law should apply to everyone, but that the same law should apply to those who are similarly situated.
- Equal protection of laws means that laws must be administered equally among equals. This also enjoins the State with power to reasonably classify those who are differently placed.
- Thus, equality under Article 14 is not 'sameness' but that there must be a parity of treatment under parity of conditions. The substantive equality under the Article calls for equality of opportunities over equality of treatment.
- Sub-classification is a facet of equality and law can further classify a class that is already created by law for a limited purpose. The classification should be based on intelligible differentia and rational nexus.
- Intelligible Differentia means a discernible and understandable distinction. Thus, the distinction should be based on clear criterion or standard.
- Rational nexus: There should be a clear and rational link between classification criterion and intended outcome or goal of the classification.
- The test to determine whether sub-classification within a class is justified under Article 14, is whether the class is homogenous or not.
Homogeneity of SCs
- There is historical and empirical evidence to show that SCs are not a homogenous class.
- Hardships and backwardness which SCs have suffered historically would differ from category to category.
- Some communities are included in the Presidential list while the same community has not been included in SCs in other states, highlighting the non-homogenous nature of SCs.
- The word 'deemed' in Article 341 was not indicative of creation of legal fiction. The intention of this legal fiction created under Article 341 was for the limited purpose of identifying the SCs and differentiating them from other groups. It was not an indicator of homogeneity.
Arguments in favour of sub-classification of SCs
- Enables Social Justice: As not all SCs have equally benefited from reservation policies; sub-classification would ensure that benefits of affirmative action and policies reach those who are truly in need.
- State Autonomy: It allows states to address local socio-economic disparities within the SC category, tailoring affirmative action policies to the specific needs of their populations.
- Alignment with Constitutional Provisions:
- Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India allows the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, as well as for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This includes making provisions for reservations in jobs and educational institutions.
- Article 16(4) allows the state to make reservations in favour of backward classes who are inadequately represented in state services. This provision is specifically aimed at ensuring that these classes have adequate representation in government employment.
- Gives impetus to nation-wide caste census.
Challenges in sub-classification of SCs
- Undermining Unity: Sub-classification could lead to further fragmentation and undermine the unity of SCs as a single group, weakening their collective political and social identity.
- Administrative Challenges: Implementing sub-classification could lead to complex administrative challenges like collection of empirical evidence, potential for disputes over which sub-castes should receive greater or lesser benefits.
- Potential for Abuse: Sub-classification could be manipulated for political gain, leading to arbitrary or politically motivated decisions.
- Ensuring Uniformity: Sub-classification can lead to different criteria and benefits being applied in different states, based on local socio-economic conditions. This could create inconsistencies in how affirmative action is implemented across the country. There is a risk that varying approaches could undermine objectives of reservation policies.
Way Forward
- Creamy Layer among SCs: States must evolve a policy for identifying creamy layer exceptions even from SCs/STs (Indira Sawhney judgement mandated creamy layers only for OBCs).
- Willing giving away of benefits: Within the SCs, certain caste groups were reaping the benefits of reservation more than others. Thus, these caste groups should walk away from special provisions making way for the needy.
- Central Guidelines: Establishing broad, uniform guidelines for sub-classification that states can adapt to local conditions may help ensure consistency while allowing for flexibility.
While sub-classification can help tailor affirmative action to better meet the needs of different groups within SCs and STs, it requires careful design and implementation to ensure it enhances, rather than undermines, the overall objectives of reservation policies.