The Hindu Editorial Analysis- 5th September 2024 | Current Affairs & Hindu Analysis: Daily, Weekly & Monthly - UPSC PDF Download

Decision on sub-classification through Ambedkar's ideals

 Why in discussion? 

The Supreme Court of India  has given a significant verdict, allowing states to sub-classify reserved category groups like Scheduled  Castes (SC) and  Scheduled Tribes (ST)  for the purpose of reservation.

•  This decision, taken by a 6-1 majority, overturned the 2004 decision and changed the landscape of reservation policies in India. 

Supreme Court's decision on sub-classification of SC and ST 

•  Sub-classification allowed:  The Supreme Court has ruled that states are constitutionally allowed to sub-classify Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) based on different levels of backwardness. This means that within the 15% reservation quota for SCs, states can further divide these groups to provide better assistance to the most disadvantaged among them. 
•  Difference between sub-classification and sub-categorisation:  The Chief Justice of India stressed the need to distinguish between “sub-classification” and “sub-categorisation”. He warned against using these classifications for political gains rather than genuine upliftment of communities. 
•  Importance of empirical data:  The Court emphasised that sub-classification should be based on empirical data and historical evidence of systemic discrimination. States need to ensure fairness and effectiveness by relying on solid evidence rather than arbitrary or politically motivated reasons. 
•  Limits on reservation:  The Court clarified that 100% reservation for any sub-class is prohibited. Decisions taken by states regarding sub-classification are subject to judicial review to prevent possible political abuse. 
•  Application of 'creamy layer' principle:  The Supreme Court has extended the 'creamy layer' principle, which earlier applied only to Other Backward Classes (OBCs), to SCs and STs as well. This means that states must identify the creamy layer within these groups and exclude them from reservation benefits, to ensure that the benefits of reservation reach those who are actually deprived. 
•  Limiting reservation to the first generation:  The court ruled that the benefit of reservation should be limited to the first generation. If a family member has availed reservation and got a higher status, then logically the next generations will not get the same benefit. 
•  Rationale of the decision:  The Court held that systemic discrimination impedes the advancement of some members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Sub-classification under Article 14 of the Constitution is seen as a means of effectively addressing these inequalities. This approach allows states to tailor reservation policies to better assist the most disadvantaged of these groups. 

What caused the reference to the sub-classification issue?

 Background to the sub-categorisation issue 

•  The issue of sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs) had arisen in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh    (2020)  , where a five-judge bench had referred the matter to a seven-judge bench.

 Key factors for reference 

 Reconsideration of E V Chinnaiya judgment 

• The five-judge bench   found it necessary to reconsider the decision in  E.V. Chinnaiya v. State of Andhra Pradesh    (2004)  .
•  In the E.V. Chinnaiya case,  the Court held that sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes is not permissible as the Scheduled Castes are considered to be a homogenous group.

 Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes Act, 2006 

• A central legal challenge in    the Davinder Singh case  was the validity of Section 4(5) of  the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes Act    (2006)  .
• This section provided that  50% of the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes  in direct recruitment would be allotted to  Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs  , depending on their availability .

 High Court decision 

• In    2010  , a division bench of  the Punjab and Haryana High Court  struck down this provision, citing the E.V. Chinnaiya judgment.
• The High Court concluded that   all the castes listed in  the President's order under Article 341(1)  were a single homogenous group and could not be further divided.

 Basis of EV Chinnaiah Judgement 

• The E.V. Chinnaiya judgment   was based on  Article 341 of the Constitution  , which gives the President the power to identify and notify Scheduled Castes.
• Under Article 341, identification and classification of Scheduled Castes can be done only by the President in consultation with the Governor and through public notification.

Arguments in favour of sub-classification 

•  Greater flexibility:  Sub-categorisation allows both central and state governments to create policies that more effectively address the needs of the most disadvantaged individuals within SC/ST communities. 
•  Alignment with social justice:  Proponents believe that sub-classification aligns with the constitutional goal of social justice by providing targeted benefits to those who are most in need. 
•  Constitutional provisions:  Article 16(4) of the Constitution allows reservation for under-represented backward classes in state services. 
•  Article 15(4) empowers the State to establish special arrangements for promoting the interests and welfare of the socially and educationally backward classes, including the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. 
•  Article 342A provides flexibility to states to maintain their own lists of socially and educationally backward classes. 

 Arguments against sub-categorisation 

•  Uniformity of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes:  Critics argue that sub-classification may disrupt the uniform status of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes recognised in the Presidential List. 
•  Potential for inequality:  There are concerns that sub-categorisation may increase divisions and inequalities within the SC community. 

Importance of the Supreme Court Judgement

 Overturning the previous decision: 

• The Supreme Court decision   overturned the judgment in the E V Chinnaiya case  , which had earlier held that Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs)   are  homogenous groups  and cannot be subdivided for the purposes of reservation by the states.
• The judgment clarified that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes and Tribes does not violate Articles 14 or 341 of the Constitution, as    held by the Chief Justice of India  .

 Effect on State Laws: 

• The decision upholds various    state laws  that had previously been struck down, such as those in Punjab and Tamil Nadu that allowed states to create sub-categories within Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe groups.
• For example, the 1975 notification of the Punjab government, which divided Scheduled Caste reservations into categories for Valmiki and Mazhabi Sikhs, was initially upheld but later challenged after the EV Chinnaiya judgment.

 Future of Reservation: 

• With this decision, states now have  the power  to implement sub-categorisation policies , potentially leading to more effective and customised reservation strategies.
•  This decision sets a new precedent  for enforcing reservations   , which could influence similar cases and policies across the country.

Challenges in sub-categorisation

•  Data collection and evidence:  It is important to obtain accurate and detailed data on the socio-economic conditions of various sub-groups within the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). States must base their sub-classification decisions on empirical evidence, which makes it challenging to ensure data accuracy and avoid biases. 
•  Balancing interests:  The goal of sub-categorisation is to uplift the most disadvantaged sub-groups, but managing competing interests can be complex. 
•  Uniformity versus diversity:  Sub-categorisation can lead to customised policies, but it can also lead to variations across states. Striking a balance between uniformity and addressing local needs is a challenge. 
•  Political resistance:  Sub-classification policies may face opposition from political groups, resulting in potential delays and conflict. 
•  Social tensions:  Sub-categorisation may exacerbate existing social tensions within SC/ST communities, leading to conflict and divisions between communities. 
•  Administrative burden:  Creating, managing, and updating sub-categories places significant administrative burden on government agencies, requiring additional resources and manpower. 

 Way Forward

• Historical considerations:  States must take into account historical discrimination, economic inequalities, and social factors while avoiding political motivations to ensure fairness. 
•  Census use:  The upcoming census should be used to collect comprehensive data on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, including sub-group specific information. 
•  Data validation:  Independent data validation processes should be established to maintain reliability and transparency. 
•  Objective criteria:  Clear and objective criteria should be defined for sub-classification, with socio-economic indicators given priority over caste or tribal affiliation. 
•  Monitoring and adjustment:  Continuous monitoring of impact and policy adjustments based on results are essential to ensure that benefits reach the intended beneficiaries. 
•  Temporary measure:  Sub-classification should be seen as a temporary measure to redress historical disadvantages, with the focus on overall socio-economic development and empowerment of SCs and STs. Dependence on reservations should gradually decline as broader social and economic conditions improve. 

UPSC Civil Services Exam Previous Year Questions:

Question: Consider the following organisations/bodies in India: (2023)

1. National Commission for Backward Classes
2. National Human Rights Commission
3. National Law Commission
4. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

How many of the above Constitutional bodies are there?

(a)   Only one  (b)   Only two  (c)   Only three  (d)   All four

Answer: (a)

main:

Question: What are the two major legal initiatives taken by the state to address discrimination against Scheduled Tribes (STs) since Independence? (2017)