Sub-Categorisation of OBCs

Context: 

Recently, Justice G. Rohini-headed Commission for the sub-categorisation of Other Backward Classes (OBC) caste groups submitted its report on the issue to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

Reservation Policies in India:

• For Fair Representation: 
  • These have been an ongoing debate with the aim of ensuring fair representation for historically oppressed communities in jobs and education. 
• Debate on Equal Sharing of Benefits: 
  • However, the uneven distribution of benefits among OBCs has led to the idea of sub-categorization to ensure that all communities receive an equal share of the benefits. 
  • Similar debates are currently taking place for SCs and STs, raising the question of whether sub-categorization is necessary for all minority groups.

Data Regarding OBCs Representation:

• Benefits to 25% Sub-Castes:
  • The Rohini Commission analyzed 1.3 lakh central jobs and OBC admissions and found that 97% of the benefits went to just 25% of the castes. 
• Disproportionate Representation: 
  • The report highlighted that out of the 994 OBC sub-castes, only 25 communities received 24.95% of the benefits, with 37% of OBC communities receiving zero representation. 
• Minimal Representation for Many Communities:
  • The report found that 2.68% of jobs and admissions were shared among 994 OBC sub-castes, indicating the need for sub-categorisation for more equitable distribution of benefits among OBC communities. 

Why is Sub-Categorisation Necessary?

• Inequalities within OBCs: 
  • While OBCs as a whole benefit from reservations, the benefits are not equally distributed among all OBC communities. 
  • Some of the more affluent OBCs often gain the most from the 27% quota, leading to a large number of economically and socially backward OBC communities missing out on opportunities. 
• Disparities despite Reservation: 
  • The implementation of reservation policies has not been enough to address the deep-seated caste-based discrimination in India. 
  • Many OBC communities still face discrimination and social stigma, despite enjoying the benefits of reservation policies. 

Judiciary on the Sub-Categorisation:

• The 2005 Ruling: 
  • “E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh” had held that no special sub-quota can be introduced within the quota for SCs and STs for the benefit of castes or tribes that were more backward than the others on these lists.
• The 2020 Verdict: 
  • The 2020 verdict of the SC referring ‘Chinnaiah’ to a larger Bench was passed in ‘State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh’ in which the court examined the validity of a 2006 Punjab law that created sub-classification within the SCs, and sought to reserve half the SC quota for certain identified castes. 
  • Even as the Justice Rohini Commission was examining the matter, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in August 2020 intervened in the sub-categorisation debate, ruling that the 2005 decision of another five-judge Bench in “E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh” must be revisited. 

Conclusion:

Sub-categorisation is necessary to ensure that all economically and socially backward communities benefit equally from the reservation system. 

Sub-categorisation is a way to achieve the value of Social Justice, which could be included by conducting proper surveys and confirming with all data in an accountable and transparent manner.

News Source: The Hindu