10 August 2024 – The Hindu

Details about Caste Reservation in India

• In the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, a seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court (SC) of India will rule on a legal issue that will have a significant impact on affirmative action and reservations under the Constitution going forward. Although Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) are sometimes treated as homogeneous groups, research and data show that there are notable differences within these groups, with certain castes experiencing more discrimination than others.

• Shouldn’t state governments have the authority to resolve these conflicts inside their own groups? This matter will be addressed in the upcoming Davinder Singh case ruling, which might provide much-needed clarification to a body of law that has long been in need of reform. A high-level committee of secretaries led by the Cabinet Secretary has been established by the Union government to assess and devise a strategy for the fair allocation of programmes, projects, and benefits to the most disadvantaged communities.

Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2020:

• The matter that is currently pending before the Supreme Court of India is an appeal against a state law that gave the government the authority to subclassify SC/STs in order to give quotas. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had upheld the state statute.
• A Punjab government circular that said that 50% of the seats set aside for SCs will be given to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs was invalidated by the High Court’s ruling.
• In reaching its conclusion, the High Court in this case cited the Chinnaiah ruling.

What is the Caste System’s Sub-Categorization?

• The practice of forming subgroups within the current Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) categories for reservation and affirmative action is known as sub-categorisation within castes.
• The goal of subcategorisation is to guarantee a more fair distribution of opportunities and benefits among the most disadvantaged and deprived segments of society, while also addressing intra-category disparities.

Is Sub-Categorization Legal?

• Previous Attempts: After attempting sub-categorization, states like Tamil Nadu, Bihar, and Punjab were confronted with legal challenges that ultimately reached the Supreme Court.
• Constitutional Dilemma: In the 2004 case of E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors, the Supreme Court ruled that only Parliament possesses the power to establish and announce SC and ST lists.
• However, a five-judge bench decided in State of Punjab and Others vs. Davinder Singh and Others, 2020 that States might determine how much benefits to add to the lists of SCs and STs that have already been declared without “tinkering” with them.
• The 2020 judgement has been referred to a bigger Bench because to the inconsistency between the 2004 and 2020 rulings.

Which States Are Capable of Developing Sub-Classification?  

Arguments in Support:

• According to Articles 15(4) and 16(4), as well as Articles 341(1) and 342(1), states are able to provide reservation benefits to SCs and STs.
• The state may establish special arrangements under Article 15(4) to further the welfare and interests of the socially and educationally disadvantaged groups in society, including the SC and STs.
• Sub-categorization within castes is mandated by the Constitution and supported by the judiciary. Article 16(4) of the Constitution grants the State the authority to reserve seats for SCs and STs in matters of promotion in the event that they are underrepresented in state-run services.
• In accordance with Articles 341(1) and 342(1), the Governor and the President of India may confer to determine which races, castes, tribes, or subsets of castes or races will be considered SCs and STs.

Rebuttals to:

• The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 was invalidated by a five-judge bench in the Chinnaiah verdict, citing constitutional violations with reference to Article 341.
• The Andhra Pradesh law allocated a different quota to each of the four categories it attempted to remove from the President’s list according to how intersely backward they were.
• The Court determined that the State administration lacked the jurisdiction to alter the list since it was evident from a cursory reading of Article 341 that only Parliament had this kind of power.
• The verdict also mentioned B.R. In his support of the presidential list, Ambedkar cautioned that allowing State governments to make changes to the list would put us at risk of the process being driven only by political concerns.

The Cabinet Secretary’s High-Powered Committee’s mandate is:  

• The principal aim of the group is to investigate substitute approaches for redressing issues encountered by diverse Southern populations around the nation.
• The group was established to address the concerns of the Madiga minority in Telangana, but its purview goes beyond a single state or community.
• The Madiga group, which makes up half of Telangana’s SCs, has struggled to receive government benefits meant for them because of the Mala clan’s domination.
• The Madiga community asserted that it has been left out of SC-related projects despite having a sizable population.
• The demand for the subcategorization of SCs has been a source of struggle since 1994. As a result, two commissions were established: the Justice P. Ramachandra Raju Commission in 1996 and the National Commission in 2007.
• The objective of this study is to assess and devise a fair approach for allocating benefits, programmes, and projects to the most disadvantaged communities among the nation’s 1,200 SCs. These communities have been displaced by more affluent and dominating ones.

What are the main factors pertaining to the subcategorization of Scheduled Castes in India?

Finding the SC/ST:

• The castes and tribes that are to be designated as SCs and STs are not specified in the Constitution, despite the fact that it grants them preferential treatment in order to attain equality.
• Article 341 leaves this authority with the President, the head of state:
• The castes that the President notifies are known as SCs and STs under Article 341. A caste that is designated as SC in one state might not be in another.

Justifications for Subcategorization:

• India is a welfare state, hence it has a duty to eliminate inequality and work towards the emancipation of the underprivileged.
• In order to prevent state resources from concentrating in a small number of hands and to ensure that everyone receives equal justice, the state must address instances when the reservation causes inequality within the reserved castes themselves by using subclassification and a distributive justice approach.
• Denying subclassification would mean treating unequal people as equal, which would be against the right to equality.
• The Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, and socially and educationally disadvantaged sections are not all created equal.
• According to a number of publications, Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes are not a cohesive group. Several publications highlight the imbalance within the Scheduled Castes, and special quotas have been developed to rectify it:
• The 1997 Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission suggested splitting the SCs up into four divisions and allocating reservations to each one separately.
• Additionally, it suggested that the Creamy Layer of Scheduled Castes be denied quota privileges for public positions and school entrance.

Rebuttals to Subcategorization:

• The contention is that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are exempt from the test or requirement of social and educational backwardness.
• The SCs receive special care because they have been untouchable for a very long time.
• The Supreme Court acknowledged in the 1976 decision of N M Thomas v. State of Kerala that Scheduled Castes are a class and should be recognised as such, despite not being castes.
• Subcategorization would be employed to curry favour with certain SC/ST vote-banks, hence politicising the social justice movement.

What are the various timelines of the Punjabi legal dispute regarding the subcategorization of SCs?  

1975:  

• The 25% SC reservation in Punjab is split into two categories by a notification from the government. It was one of the first times a state had “sub-classified” an already-existing reservation.
• Although the notification was in effect for almost thirty years, in 2004 it encountered legal difficulties.

2004:  

• The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 is overturned by the Supreme Court on the grounds that it violates the E.V. It was underlined in the Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh case that the SC list ought to be regarded as a single, cohesive group.
• Later, in Dr. Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab, the Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the E.V. and invalidated the 1975 notification. Chinnaiah choice.

2006: 

• With the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, the Punjab government attempted to revive sub-categorization; however, it was overturned in 2010.

2014:  

• The Supreme Court questioned the validity of the 2004 E.V. and forwarded the case to a five-judge constitution panel. Chinnaiah choice.

2020:  

• The bench for Constitutional law maintains that the 2004 ruling should be reexamined, rejecting the notion that SCs are a monolithic group and admitting that there are “unequal” members of the list.
• The Supreme Court also suggested the idea of the “creamy layer” for SCs and STs.

• The matter is being heard by a larger seven-judge bench since only its opinion can be overruled by a smaller bench’s ruling.
• Sub-classification will affect a number of communities in different states, such as the Arundhatiyars in Tamil Nadu, Madiga in Andhra Pradesh, Paswans in Bihar, Jatavs in Uttar Pradesh, and Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs in Punjab.

What are the distinct developments that have occurred in the Davinder Singh case thus far?  

• Taking a Cue from the Indra Sawhney Decision: The Supreme Court questioned the prevailing viewpoint by referencing its decision in the 1992 case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, which was based on the Mandal Commission’s report.
• There, a nine-judge bench ruled that it was acceptable to subclassify members of the socially and educationally backward classes (OBCs) in order to get government services.
• Accepting the Judgement in K.C. In the Vasanth Kumar Case (1985), Justice Chinnappa Reddy’s ruling in K.C. was supported by the majority. State of Karnataka v. Vasanth Kumar & Others (1985). In it, Justice had decided that although each case’s particular facts may determine whether or not subclassifications are appropriate, nevertheless
• Courts can not understand why, in theory, there cannot be a distinction between more backward and backward classes if both classes lag substantially behind the most advanced groups.
• Actually, in order to assist the more backward classes, a categorization of this kind would be required; otherwise, members of the backward classes who may be somewhat more advanced than the more backward classes would end up having all the seats.
• The most advanced classes would take all of the seats available for the general category, leaving none for the backward classes, if reservations were made for the more backward classes but not for the somewhat more advanced backward classes.

Which Suggestions Are There for Sub-Classifying Different Caste Groups?

Keeping the Promise of Real Equality:

• The collective commitment to equality found in the Constitution is the fundamental issue. A substantive equality guarantee is found in Articles 14 through 16, which taken together form a code of conduct.
• This assurance acknowledges that caste has been a basis for discrimination against people throughout India’s history.
• Therefore, in order to guarantee equitable treatment, we must keep collective interests in mind, as required by our constitutional vision.
• According to this approach, reservations should be viewed as a tool to further and solidify the goal of equality rather than as a measure that is at odds with or an exception to it.

Recognising State Governments’ Role:  

• In Kerala State & Anr vs. N.M. Thomas & Ors (1975), the Supreme Court has seemed, at least in principle, to recognise that governments have a duty to guarantee nondiscrimination in addition to the authority to create exceptions and right historical wrongs.
• From this perspective, the Punjabi government is constitutionally bound to make sure that its current reservation policies are amended if its research indicates that they have not sufficiently touched Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs.

Need for Article 341 to Be Read More Widely:  

• The equality code of the Constitution would be violated if Article 341 were to be interpreted as prohibiting subclassification. In any event, Article 341 does not establish such a prohibition, even when read plainly.
• All it does is forbid State governments from adding or removing castes from the President’s list of Scheduled Castes.
• States do not take action to add or remove additional castes from the list when they grant preferential treatment to specific castes that are on this list.
• The general reservation policies of the State will still apply to those castes.

After the Appropriate Categorization:  

• It is clear that the Punjab law does not alter the President’s list. The only thing it does is make up for the relative backwardness in that ranking by giving Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs more weight.
• This subclassification also adheres to the long-standing constitutional doctrine that permits appropriate classifications in order to guarantee equality.

Assessing Sub-Classification based on Individual merits:  

• A sub-classification must be assessed on its own merits if the lists of SCs and STs are not viewed as uniform groups, but rather as an assortment of castes with varying degrees of development.
• That is to say, the Court’s only tasks will be to determine whether Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs can be discernibly distinguished from other castes on the President’s list and whether giving them preferential treatment, and to what extent, is consistent with the law’s overarching goal of guaranteeing fair treatment.

• The Supreme Court’s seven-judge bench’s impending decision and a committee’s findings will direct the process of dividing Scheduled Castes into smaller groups. It’s time for the Supreme Court to genuinely consider what it decided in New Mexico. Thomas stated that governments have an obligation to guarantee the realisation of the constitutional goal of equality in addition to the authority to express reservations.
• Therefore, any power granted to the States to grant special treatment to the castes within SCs and STs that experience the greatest discrimination must be viewed as a means of bringing the concept of equal opportunity to reality.