Sub-Categorization of SCs, Historical Background and Debates Around It

Context: The Union government has formed a high-level committee of secretaries, chaired by the Cabinet Secretary.

About the Committee for Sub-categorisation of SCs

• Composition of the Committee: The Committee includes Secretaries from various ministries: Home, Law, Tribal Affairs, Social Justice, and the Department of Personnel and Training, along with the Cabinet Secretary.
• The role of the committee is to evaluate and work out a method for the equitable distribution of benefits, schemes and initiatives to the most backward communities among the over 1,200 Scheduled Castes (SCs) across the country, that have been crowded out by relatively forward and dominant ones.
• This committee’s formation is the result of the demand for sub-categorisation of Scheduled Castes as raised by the Madiga community in Telangana.

We’re now on WhatsApp. Click to Join

Historical Background

The roots of this debate trace back to 1975 when the Punjab government divided its 25% SC reservation into two categories. The first category exclusively reserved seats for the Balmiki and Mazhbi Sikh communities, deemed economically and educationally backward. This preferential treatment was aimed at addressing historical disadvantages.

However, in 2004, the Supreme Court, in ‘E.V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh,’ struck down a similar law in Andhra Pradesh, stating that sub-classification violated the right to equality. The Court emphasized that the SC list should be treated as a single, homogenous group, as specified in Article 341 of the Constitution, granting the President power to create the list.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court, in ‘Dr. Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab,’ subsequently struck down the 1975 notification.

Debate on Sub-Categorization within Scheduled Castes (SCs)

Arguments in Favor

1. Addressing Graded Inequalities: Supporters of sub-categorization argue that there are significant graded inequalities among SC communities. Even within the marginalized, certain communities have limited access to basic facilities, leading to disparities.

2. Unequal Access to Benefits: It is pointed out that relatively more forward communities among SCs tend to consistently avail benefits, overshadowing the more backward ones. Sub-categorization is seen as a solution to ensure equitable distribution of reservations by providing a separate quota for the more disadvantaged communities within the SCs.

Arguments Against

1. Not Addressing Root Causes: Opponents argue that creating separate reservations within categories might not address the root cause of the problem. The focus should be on ensuring that existing schemes and government benefits reach all sections, especially the most backward communities, before considering sub-categorization.

2. Lack of Candidates for Higher Positions: Even if reservations are extended to higher levels, it is argued that the most backward SCs might not have sufficient candidates to be considered for these positions. The emphasis should be on creating opportunities and ensuring representation at all levels.

3. Need for Concrete Data: Legal experts emphasize the necessity of concrete data to support sub-categorization. They advocate for a caste census, including detailed socio-economic data for each community and sub-community. This data would serve as an empirical basis for justifying the sub-categorization of benefits and determining the additional share each community requires.

Union Government’s Position on Sub-Categorization of SCs

In 2005, the Union government deliberated on legal possibilities for the sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes (SCs). The then Attorney General of India suggested that sub-categorization could be considered feasible, but it would require compelling evidence indicating a clear necessity for such a move.

During this period, both the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) expressed the view that a constitutional amendment might not be essential. They argued that Article 16(4) of the Constitution already empowered states to enact special laws for any backward classes they deemed under-represented.

Additionally, the commissions emphasized that merely setting aside a quota within the existing quota might not suffice. They stressed the urgency of ensuring that the current schemes and benefits reached the marginalized communities on a priority basis. The focus was on addressing the immediate needs of these communities rather than solely relying on sub-categorization.

Sharing is caring!