01-August-2024-Special-Article

SUB-CLASSIFICATION OF SCHEDULED CASTES (SCS) AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (STS): SUPREME COURT VERDICT

The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment that empowers states to sub-classify Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) for the purpose of reservations.

This decision, passed by a 6-1 majority, reverses the 2004 E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ruling.

It significantly alters how reservation policies are implemented, allowing for a more nuanced approach to addressing the needs of different groups within the SC/ST communities.

SC’s Verdict on Sub-Classifications of SCs and STs

Sub-Classifications Permitted:

• Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that states have the constitutional authority to sub-classify SCs and STs based on the varying degrees of backwardness within these groups.
• Implementation: States can now create sub-categories within the existing 15% SC reservation quota to ensure that the most disadvantaged groups receive adequate support.

Differentiating Sub-Classification and Sub-Categorisation:

• Chief Justice’s Clarification: The Chief Justice emphasized that sub-classification is different from sub-categorization and warned against using these distinctions for political gains instead of genuine upliftment.
• Criteria: The Court highlighted that sub-classification should be grounded in empirical data and historical evidence of discrimination, rather than arbitrary or political reasons.

Exclusion of the Creamy Layer:

• Application to SCs and STs: The Court extended the ‘creamy layer’ principle, previously applied to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the Indra Sawhney case, to SCs and STs.
• Rationale: This means that states must identify and exclude the creamy layer within SCs and STs from reservation benefits, ensuring that reservations are provided to those who are truly disadvantaged.

Limiting Reservation to First Generation:

• Generational Limitation: The Court stated that reservation benefits should be limited to the first generation. Once a family member has benefited from reservations and attained a higher status, subsequent generations should not be eligible for the same benefits.
• Objective: This approach aims to prevent the misuse of reservations and ensure that they reach the most needy individuals within the community.

Rationale for the Verdict

Addressing Systemic Discrimination:

• Recognition of Disparities: The Court acknowledged that systemic discrimination within SCs and STs prevents some members from advancing, making sub-classification under Article 14 of the Constitution necessary to address these disparities.
• Tailored Support: By allowing sub-classification, states can more effectively tailor reservation policies to support the most disadvantaged within these groups.

Reference to Sub-Classification Issue:

• Background: The issue of sub-classification was referred to a seven-judge bench in the State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2020) case. This was done to reconsider the 2004 E.V. Chinnaiah judgment, which held that SCs and STs were a homogeneous group and could not be subdivided for reservation purposes.
• Legal Challenge: The Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which reserved 50% of SC vacancies for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, was challenged based on the Chinnaiah ruling, leading to the High Court striking down the provision.

Arguments For Sub-Classification:

• Enhanced Flexibility: Sub-classification allows governments to design reservation policies that better address the needs of the most disadvantaged within SC/ST communities.
• Alignment with Social Justice: Supporters argue that sub-classification helps achieve social justice by ensuring that benefits are targeted toward those who need them most.
• Constitutional Backing: Articles 16(4) and 15(4) of the Constitution empower the state to create special arrangements for promoting the welfare of socially and educationally backward classes.

Arguments Against Sub-Classification:

• Homogeneity Concern: Critics argue that sub-classification could undermine the uniform status of SCs and STs as recognized in the Presidential list.
• Potential for Inequality: There are concerns that sub-classification could exacerbate inequalities within the SC community by creating further divisions.

Significance of the Supreme Court Verdict

Overruling Previous Judgment:

• Reversal of Chinnaiah Ruling: The Supreme Court’s decision overturns the E.V. Chinnaiah ruling, which had held that SCs and STs could not be subdivided for reservation purposes.

Impact on State Laws:

• Upholding State Policies: The ruling validates various state laws, such as those in Punjab and Tamil Nadu, that had been previously struck down, allowing states to create sub-categories within SC and ST groups.

Future of Reservations:

• Nuanced Approach: States now have the authority to implement sub-classification policies, leading to more nuanced and effective reservation strategies. This decision sets a precedent that could influence similar cases and policies across the country.

Challenges for Sub-Classification

Data Collection and Evidence:

• Need for Empirical Data: Accurate data collection on the socio-economic conditions of different sub-groups within SCs and STs is crucial for justifying sub-classification decisions.

Balancing Interests:

• Complexity in Implementation: Balancing the interests of different sub-groups within SC/ST communities is a complex task, requiring careful consideration to avoid exacerbating social tensions.

Administrative Burden:

• Resource Requirements: Implementing and managing sub-classification policies adds a significant administrative burden on government agencies, necessitating additional resources and manpower.

Way Forward

Historical and Empirical Basis:

• Consider Discrimination: States should base their sub-classification decisions on historical discrimination, economic disparities, and social factors, avoiding political motivations.

Data Collection:

• Utilize Census Data: The upcoming Census should be leveraged to gather comprehensive data on SCs and STs, including specific information on sub-groups.

Fair Criteria:

• Define Clear Criteria: Clear and objective criteria for sub-classification should be established, prioritizing socio-economic indicators over mere caste or tribal affiliations.

Continuous Monitoring:

• Evaluate Outcomes: Monitoring the impact of sub-classification policies and adjusting them based on outcomes is essential to ensure that the benefits reach the intended beneficiaries.

Focus on Development:

• Temporary Measure: Recognize sub-classification as a temporary measure to address historical disadvantages, with a long-term focus on socio-economic development and empowerment of SCs and STs.

Mains Question:

“Critically analyze the implications of the Supreme Court’s 2024 verdict allowing sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) for reservations. How does this decision address systemic inequalities within these communities?” (150 WORDS)