Sub Categorisation Within Castes: Background, Committee, Challenges, and Way Forward

Context: 

This article is based on the news “How the legal debate over sub-categorisation among SCs has evolved over the years” which was published in the Indian Express. The Union government has established a panel of secretaries led by the Union Cabinet Secretary to categorize Scheduled Castes (SCs) into A, B, C, and D groups.

Sub Categorisation Within Castes: Background

• This comes in the backdrop of Prime Minister’s promise to look into the demand for sub-categorisation of SCs as raised by the Madiga community.
• States Demand for Separate Quota:  The Union government received representations from state governments, such as Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Karnataka, advocating for the sub categorisation of Scheduled Castes (SCs), including Madigas. 

• • They demand a separate quota for some castes within the SC quota of 15% to ensure that the benefits are equitably distributed among all castes.
• Hearing by Constitution Bench: The matter is at present under consideration of a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court.
  • Power of sub-classifications among SCs: The Supreme court will decide if states have the power to create these sub-classifications when providing reservations or if such power is vested only with the President.
  • Constitutionality of sub-categorization: It will focus on the constitutionality of sub-categorization among Scheduled Castes (SCs) to address the reservation in jobs and education designated for them. 
• However, the government panel will explore alternative approaches to address their grievances.

About the Committee

• Composition of Committee: The committee comprises secretaries of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Department of Legal Affairs and Department of Social Justice and Empowerment.
• Chaired by: Union Cabinet Secretary
• Mandate of Committee: 
• • To assess and devise a strategy for the fair distribution of benefits, schemes, and initiatives for the most marginalized communities among the 1,200 Scheduled Castes nationwide. 
  • To address the overshadowing of interests of SCs like Madigas and other such groups by relatively more forward and dominant ones.

What is Sub Categorisation within Caste?

• About:  It refers to further classifying broader caste groups into sub-groups based on various criteria. 
• Objective: It attempts to address the diversity within larger caste groups and provide targeted benefits to specific sub-groups that may be perceived as socially and economically disadvantaged.
• Demand for Sub Categorisation of Caste: Over time, some castes and communities have sought recognition and specific privileges based on their unique characteristics, historical backgrounds, or socio-economic status. 

Need for Sub Categorisation within Castes

• Unequal Opportunities: The policy of protective and compensatory discrimination leads to disproportional representation of sub-castes in employment, education, and legislature.
  • In Tamil Nadu, a 3% quota within the Scheduled Caste quota is accorded to the Arundhatiyar caste, after Justice M S Janarthanam report stated that despite being 16% of the SC population in the state, they held only 0-5% of the jobs.
• Graded Inequalities: There have been graded inequalities among SC communities and even among the marginalized, some communities have less access to basic facilities. 
  • The relatively more forward communities among them have managed to avail benefits consistently while crowding the more backward ones out. 
• Overcoming Hierarchy: The SCs category is not homogenous and comprises a wide range of communities with distinct cultural, social, and economic characteristics.
  • According to the annual report of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, there were 1,263 SCs in the country in 2018-19. 
  • Some SC communities may have made progress in education, employment, and socio-economic development, while others continue to face significant disadvantages.
• Securing Social Mobility: The reservation policy is ineffective in providing benefits to every sub-caste group at a uniform level which resulted in competition and conflict between various sub-caste groups of Scheduled Castes. 
  • The acquisition of political power, educational improvement, and occupational change could become the major assets for Scheduled Castes’ upward mobility, which acts as a major factor for the demand for sub-categorization.
• Ensuring Social Justice: Social justice emphasizes ensuring that historically marginalized communities receive fair and just treatment and that their specific concerns are adequately addressed. 
  • Sub-categorization allows for a more targeted approach in addressing the specific vulnerabilities and needs of particular SC sub-groups. 
• Ensuring Equitable Distribution of Resources: Sub-categorization could help avoid the concentration of benefits in certain communities while others remain underserved. 
  • For this, States have tried to divide the scheduled caste quota on the grounds that caste is a form of graded inequality. 
  • Punjab created an order of preferences in 1975 within scheduled castes for recruitment.

Legal Battles for Scheduled Caste Sub Categorisation

• 1975: Sub-Categorisation by Punjab Government
  • Punjab government divides its 25% SCs reservation into two categories:
    • Reserved for the Balmiki and Mazhbi Sikh communities (most economically and educationally backward communities).
    • Thus, they were to be given first preference for any reservations in education and public employment.
  • Rest of the SCs communities, which didn’t get this preferential treatment.
• 1996: Formation of Justice Ramachandra Commission
  • The Andhra Pradesh government formed the Commission.
  • Recommendations: The commission proposes sub-categorisation of SCs in the State based on evidence that some communities were more backward and had less representation than others.
• 2000: Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act:
  • The Andhra Pradesh government introduced the Act.
  • The law contained an expansive list of scheduled caste communities identified in the state and the quota of reservation benefits provided to each of them.
• 2004: E.V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh
  • In 2004, a five-judge constitution bench struck down the act for being violative of the right to equality. 
  • Arguments given by the Court: The Court held that the sub-classification would violate the right to equality by treating communities within this category differently and the SC list must be treated as a single, homogenous group.
• Dr. Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab: In this case,  the Punjab & Haryana High Court struck down the 1975 notification.
• 2006: Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act
  • The Punjab government attempted to bring back the law by passing this act.
• 2010: Appeal to Supreme Court
  • The Punjab government subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court(SC) against the High Court’s decision, contending that the SC’s 2004 judgment had incorrectly concluded that sub-classification within the Scheduled Caste quota is not permissible.
• 2014: Davinder Singh v State of Punjab. 
  • The SC referred the appeal to a five-judge constitution bench to determine if the E V Chinnaiah of 2004 required reconsideration since it needed an inquiry into the interplay of several constitutional provisions. 
    • Interpretation of the Constitution requires a bench of at least five-judges of the Supreme Court.
• 2018: Jarnail Singh v Lachhmi Narain Gupta
  • In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the concept of “creamy layer” within SCs too. 
  • The ‘Creamy layer’ concept puts an income ceiling on those eligible for reservations. 
  • While this concept applies to Other Backward Castes (OBC), it was applied to promotions of SCs for the first time in 2018.
• Matter is Pending Before 7 judges Bench: As both the Davinder Singh bench and the E V Chinnaiah bench consisted of five judges, the matter is now being heard by a larger seven-judge bench as the decision of a larger bench takes precedence over that of a smaller bench.

Challenges Related with Sub Categorisation within Caste

• Identification and Criteria: Determining the criteria for sub-categorization can be challenging. Parameters such as socio-economic status, educational attainment, or regional factors may be considered, but reaching a consensus on these criteria can be difficult.
  • Supreme Court rulings in 1976 and 2005 empahsizes that ‘SCs are not castes, they are class’ and their protection is based on addressing untouchability, not other factors.
• Data Accuracy and Availability: Concrete population numbers of each community and sub-community and their respective socio-economic data are necessary to decide how castes can be categorized, how much percentage should be given, etc. 
  • Obtaining accurate and up-to-date data on the socio-economic status of different Scheduled Caste communities is a challenge. 
• Potential for Intra-group Disputes: Sub-categorization may lead to internal divisions and disputes among SC communities. 
  • Some groups may feel marginalized from the benefits, leading to social tensions within the broader  Scheduled Caste category. 
  • For instance, backwardness among  SCs  also draws from the practice of untouchability, and sub categorisation may sharpen differences within and bring in competitive affirmative action. 
• Possibility of Fragmentation: There is a risk that sub-categorization might lead to the fragmentation of the SC community, diluting their political and social identity. 
  • This could weaken their collective strength in advocating for their rights.
• Quota May Not be Enough: The National Commissions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes had opposed the move, arguing that just setting aside a quota within the quota would not be enough.
  • They have argued that given the disparity, even if posts were reserved at higher levels, these most backward SCs would not have enough candidates.
  • Thus, it needs to be made sure that the existing schemes and benefits reach them on a priority basis. 

Way Forward

• Exploring Alternatives to Introduce Sub-Categorisation: The Union government needs to explore legal options for the same. 
  • For instance, the Attorney General of India (AGI) had opined that a constitutional amendment could be brought in to facilitate this.
  • The NCSC and NCST had opined that Article 16(4) of the Constitution already provided for States to create special laws for any backward classes it felt were under-represented.
  • The Justice Usha Mehra Committee in its 2008 report recommended the inclusion of Clause (3) in Article 341 through a constitutional amendment empowering state legislature to enact reclassification of the Scheduled Caste category subject to Presidential confirmation.
• Data Collection and Analysis: According to legal experts, the Constitution does not  prohibit the Parliament from sub-categorising SCs or STs.
  • However, the government needs to ensure comprehensive and accurate data collection on the socio-economic conditions of different Scheduled Caste communities. 
  • This can be the only empirical basis to justify sub-categorisation of benefits and evaluating extra share of benefits required by each community.
• Criteria Development: Develop transparent and inclusive criteria for sub-categorization, considering factors such as socio-economic status, educational attainment, and regional disparities.
  • The Andhra Pradesh government in 1996 formed a Commission of Justice Ramachandra Raju, which recommended sub categorisation of Scheduled Caste in the State based on evidence that some communities were more backward and had less representation than others. 
• Following the Middle Path: Strike a balance between recognizing the diversity within the Scheduled Caste category and maintaining the overall unity of the community. 
  • Policies need to address the specific needs of sub-groups without causing fragmentation or weakening the collective strength of the SC community.