Daily Hot Topic
Topic : Sub-Categorisation in Scheduled Caste Reservation

GS-2 Mains  : Polity

Context

• SC allows sub-categorisation of SCs for reservations (6:1 verdict).
• Overrules 2004 judgement treating SCs as homogenous group.

Background

• 2004 SC judgement: SCs as single, homogenous group.
• States (Punjab, Bihar, Tamil Nadu) attempted sub-categorisation.
• Punjab’s 1975 notification: Divided SC quota into Balmiki/Mazhabi Sikh and others.
• Andhra Pradesh’s 2000 law struck down in 2004.

Legal Framework

• E.V. Chinnaiah v State of AP (2004): SCs as single class, state can’t sub-classify.
• Davinder Singh case: Larger bench formed to decide matter.
• Committee of Secretaries: Evaluate equitable distribution strategies for backward SC groups.

Sub-Categorisation Arguments

• Graded inequalities: Some SC groups more backward than others.
• Unequal representation: Dominant SC groups corner benefits.
• Data: Need for empirical data on socio-economic status of SC subgroups.

SC Judgement

• States can sub-classify SCs: Based on inadequate representation and backwardness.
• Justification needed: Empirical data, not whims or political expediency.
• Not 100% reservation for sub-class: Balance required.
• SCs not homogenous: Recognizes diversity within SC community.

Challenges

• Legal: State power to sub-classify, data availability.
• Practical: Defining backwardness, potential for new divisions.

Scheduled Castes in India

• Population: 16.6% (2011 census).
• Constitutional provisions: Art 14, 15(4), 16(4, 4A, 4B), 17, 23, 24, 46, 330, 335.
• Other laws: RFCTLARR Act, SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.

Conclusion

• SC decision allows for more targeted approach to SC reservations.
• Addresses inequalities within SC community.
• Requires careful implementation and data-driven approach.
• Potential challenges in defining sub-categories and ensuring equitable distribution.