Context:
The Indian government has set up a high-level committee, led by the Cabinet Secretary, to address the issue of dominant Scheduled Caste (SC) communities receiving more benefits than the most backward ones.
Relevance:
GS II: Polity and Governance
Dimensions of the Article:
- Legal Aspects of Sub-Categorization of Scheduled Castes: A Judicial Journey
- Arguments for and Against Sub-Categorization of SCs
Legal Aspects of Sub-Categorization of Scheduled Castes: A Judicial Journey
Attempts by States:
- Over the past two decades, States like Punjab, Bihar, and Tamil Nadu have sought to implement reservation laws at the State level for sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes (SCs).
- The aim is to determine a separate quantum of reservation for these subcategories within the broader category of SCs.
Judicial Intervention:
- Legal challenges arose when the Andhra Pradesh government, in 1996, recommended sub-categorization based on backwardness and representation disparities among SC communities.
- The Supreme Court, in 2004, ruled that States lacked the unilateral power to sub-categorize SCs or Scheduled Tribes (STs).
Contradictory Judgments:
- In 2020, a five-judge Bench, led by Justice Arun Mishra, suggested that determining benefits within the already-notified lists of SCs/STs would not constitute interference and States could proceed.
- This apparent contradiction led to the 2020 judgment being referred to a larger Bench.
Union Government’s Involvement:
- Despite the pending Supreme Court decision, the Union government explored legal avenues in 2005.
- The Attorney-General of India (AGI) opined that sub-categorization was possible with “unimpeachable evidence,” suggesting a constitutional amendment.
National Commission and Constitutional Amendment Proposal:
- The Union government formed a National Commission to investigate sub-categorization in Andhra Pradesh.
- The Cabinet recommended amending Article 341 of the Constitution, but the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) argued against the need for a constitutional amendment.
- They pointed to Article 16(4), stating it already empowered States to create special laws for under-represented backward classes.
Arguments for and Against Sub-Categorization of SCs:
Arguments in Favor:
- Graded Inequalities: The primary argument for sub-categorization stems from the perceived graded inequalities among Scheduled Caste (SC) communities.
- Access Disparities: The contention is that even within marginalized communities, some have lesser access to basic facilities, leading to more forward communities consistently availing benefits while overshadowing the more backward ones.
- Need for Separate Reservation: Advocates argue that sub-categorizing communities and providing separate reservations for the more backward groups within the SC category is the solution.
Arguments Against:
- Root Cause Addressal: Both the SC and ST Commissions counter that separate reservations within categories do not address the root cause of the problem.
- Representation at All Levels: The commissions emphasize the need for representation at all levels and contend that the most backward SCs are significantly behind more forward SC communities.
- Insufficient Candidates: Even with reserved posts at higher levels, the most backward SCs may lack enough candidates to be considered, perpetuating the existing disparity.
- Prioritizing Existing Schemes: Both commissions recommend that existing schemes and government benefits should reach these sections before considering sub-categorization to ensure comprehensive upliftment.
-Source: The Hindu
