States can sub-classify SCs for quotas: top court in State of Punjab Vs Davinder Singh case (2024)

02 Aug States can sub-classify SCs for quotas: top court in State of Punjab Vs Davinder Singh case (2024)

States can sub-classify SCs for quotas: top court in State of Punjab Vs Davinder Singh  (2024)

This article covers “Daily Current Affairs” and details the topic of sub-categorization of SCs and STs.

Syllabus mapping: GS-2: Social justice: The policies and schemes to protect the vulnerable section of the society. GS-1: Social issues: The social empowerment.

For Prelims:

What are constitutional provisions related to the SCs and STs? Various case laws and their implications?

For Mains:

How the recent judgment will be a landmark in achieving social justice. Various observations and ways to make this subcategorization more effective?

Why In the News?

Seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court holds that sub-categorization within a class is a constitutional requirement to secure substantive equality, if the social position of the constituents is not comparable; says apprehensions of ‘potential political tinkering’ cannot obviate the constitutional need for acknowledging inequality among SCs. 

Who are the SCs and STs?

Scheduled Castes (SCs): Scheduled Castes are those communities historically marginalized due to the practice of untouchability and caste discrimination. They have been subjected to severe social and economic disadvantages.

Historical Context: SCs have traditionally occupied lower positions in the social hierarchy and faced systemic discrimination. The term “Scheduled Castes” was first used in the Government of India Act of 1935 and was further formalized in the Indian Constitution.

Constitutional Provision: Article 341 of the Indian Constitution empowers the President, with the consent of the Governor of a state, to specify the castes or communities considered as SCs in that state or Union Territory. The list can be modified by Parliament through legislation.

Scheduled Tribes (STs): Scheduled Tribes are distinct groups that typically live in isolated regions, such as forests, and have unique cultural, social, and economic characteristics. They may also include nomadic tribes.

Constitutional Provision: Article 342 allows the President to specify tribes or tribal communities as STs for any state or Union Territory through a public notification. Parliament can also include or exclude tribes from the list by law.

Constitutional Provisions for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes:

The Indian Constitution provides a range of constitutional rights and protections for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to ensure their upliftment and safeguard their interests. Here’s a detailed overview of these rights and protections:

Article 15 – Prohibition of Discrimination

Article 15(1): Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

Article 15(4): Allows the State to make special provisions for the advancement of SCs and STs. This provision facilitates affirmative action in educational institutions and public employment.

Article 16 – Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment

Article 16(1): Ensures equality of opportunity in public employment for all citizens.

Article 16(4): Permits the State to make provisions for reservations in public employment for SCs and STs to ensure their adequate representation and participation.

Article 17 – Abolition of Untouchability

Article 17: Abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form. Untouchability encompasses not only physical avoidance but also a range of social practices that discriminate against SCs.

Article 46 – Promotion of Educational and Economic Interests

Article 46: Directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of SCs, STs, and other weaker sections of society. It also aims to protect them from social injustice and exploitation.

Article 338 – National Commission for Scheduled Castes

Article 338: Provides for the establishment of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC). The Commission’s functions include Investigating and monitoring all matters related to the constitutional and legal safeguards for SCs. Evaluating the working of these safeguards. Looking into specific complaints regarding violations of rights and safeguards of SCs.

Article 338-A – National Commission for Scheduled Tribes

Article 338-A: Establishes the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), which performs similar functions as the NCSC. The NCST’s responsibilities include investigating and monitoring issues related to the constitutional and legal safeguards for STs. Evaluating the effectiveness of these safeguards. Addressing specific complaints about violations of rights and safeguards of STs.

Previous Case Laws on Sub-Categorization: 

1. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006): In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the sub-categorization of SC/STs aimed at the effective implementation of reservations.
2. Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana (2010): Significance: Affirmed that States can classify within SCs and STs to address intra-group disparities.
3. Union of India v. S. R. Bansal (2020): The SC, Supported the need for policies to exclude affluent members from receiving reservation benefits.
4. State of Tamil Nadu v. K. S. Venkatesh (2020): Tamil Nadu Arundhatiyar Reservation Act. Significance: Upheld the constitutionality of sub-categorization if aimed at addressing intra-group disparities.

Recent Developments:

The Supreme Court’s Observations in the State of Punjab Vs  Davinder Singh  Case (2024)

What is the mean by Sub-Classifying Scheduled Castes (SCs): In a 6:1 majority decision, the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, affirmed that States have the authority to sub-classify Scheduled Castes listed in the Presidential List. This sub-classification allows States to provide preferential treatment in public employment and education to different sub-groups within the SCs based on their relative social and economic conditions.

Principle of Sub-Classification: The Bench drew parallels with the Indra Sawhney case, where a nine-judge Bench had upheld the classification of backward classes into “backward” and “more backward” categories. Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized that the principle of sub-classification is essential for achieving substantive equality, particularly if the social position among SCs varies significantly.

Creamy Layer Principle: Four judges on the Bench advocated for the extension of the “creamy layer principle” to SCs and Scheduled Tribes (STs). This principle, which currently applies to Other Backward Classes (OBCs), involves excluding more affluent individuals from receiving benefits of affirmative action to ensure that the most disadvantaged within these categories benefit from reservations.

Constitutional Basis: The Court’s decision is grounded in Articles 15(4) and 16(5) of the Indian Constitution, which pertain to affirmative action and equal opportunity in public employment. The judgment acknowledges the need to address inequalities among SCs, despite potential concerns about political misuse.

Opposing View: Justice Bela Trivedi dissented, arguing that States do not have the authority to modify the Presidential List of SCs.

Judicial Opinions: Chief Justice Chandrachud’s opinion was supported by a majority of the judges, who agreed that sub-classification within SCs is constitutionally permissible. Justice Gavai highlighted that treating “unequal unequally is necessary to achieve real equality”

Criteria for Creamy Layer: Justice B.R. Gavai highlighted the need for a specific policy to identify the ‘creamy layer’ within SCs and STs, distinct from the criteria used for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). He argued that while some SC/ST individuals might still face significant social and economic challenges, those who have leveraged reservations to achieve higher positions should be considered part of the creamy layer and thus excluded from further benefits.

Real Equality: Justice Gavai and the supporting judges believed that excluding affluent individuals from reservation benefits would help achieve genuine equality by ensuring that those most in need of support receive it. This approach aims to ensure that the benefits of affirmative action are directed towards the truly disadvantaged.

                                                 Source: TH, Only for reference purposes

Benefits of Sub-Classification:

• Targeted Assistance: The report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (2020) discusses the effectiveness of reservation policies and suggests measures for improving the implementation of affirmative action, including considerations for sub-categorization for the targeted assistance.

• Improved Resource Allocation: Directs resources more efficiently to those in greater need and also enhances the effectiveness of programs and policies.

• Encouragement of Social Mobility: Provides increased opportunities for disadvantaged sub-groups and will reduce relative deprivation and promote upward mobility.

• Enhanced Representation and Participation: Dr. Sukhdeo Thorat endorsed sub-categorization to address disparities within SCs and STs and emphasized the need for inclusive policies.

• Mitigation of Creamy Layer Issues: Sub-categorization would identify and exclude more affluent members from receiving reserved benefits and ensure that benefits go to those who genuinely need them.

• Promotion of Inclusivity and Unity: Improves representation of various sub-groups in public institutions. This will ensure balanced development and equitable distribution of benefits.

Issues  with Sub-Categorization:

1. Intra-Group Conflict and Division: Professor M. N. Srinivas suggested that while sub-categorization could help address intra-group disparities, it might also create divisions within SCs and STs. He stressed the importance of careful implementation.
2. Political Manipulation: Sub-categorization might be used by politicians for electoral gain. This could lead to misuse of affirmative action policies to secure votes from specific sub-groups. 
3. Equity vs. Equality Concerns: Balancing equity and equality can become tricky. Sub-categorization aims for fairness within groups but might complicate achieving overall equality for SCs and STs.
4. Risk of Marginalizing the Most Disadvantaged: Sub-categorization might neglect the most disadvantaged within SCs and STs. If not carefully managed, it could result in less support for those who need it the most. 
5. Impact on Social Cohesion: Sub-categorization might harm solidarity among SCs and STs. Dividing into sub-categories could affect their ability to unite and advocate for common interests. 
6. Potential for Inequality in Implementation: The implementation of sub-categorization might be inconsistent. Without a clear process, benefits might not be distributed fairly among different sub-categories.

Measures need to take the subcategorization in the right direction:

1. Establish Clear Criteria: Define specific, transparent criteria for sub-categorization to avoid ambiguity and ensure fairness is the first step in this direction.
2. Transparency: Ensure that the process of sub-categorization is transparent to build trust and avoid allegations of favoritism and corruption.
3. Impact Assessment: Evaluate the impact of sub-categorization on different sub-groups to ensure that it meets the intended objectives without unintended negative consequences.
4. Consultation: Engage with SC and ST communities, academic experts, and civil society organizations in the decision-making process to ensure that their perspectives and needs are considered. This would help to reduce the unintended consequences of the subcategorization. 
5. Prevent Political Manipulation: Establish safeguards to prevent the misuse of sub-categorization for political gain. The leaders of all parties should not politicize the issues.
6. Ensure Equitable Resource Allocation: Allocate resources based on the needs of the most disadvantaged sub-groups to ensure that benefits reach those who need them the most.
7. Data-Driven Decisions: Use data and research findings to inform decisions and improve the implementation of sub-categorization policies.

Conclusion:

While sub-categorization of SCs and STs can help address specific intra-group disparities and ensure more targeted support, it must be implemented with careful consideration of these issues. Ensuring transparency, fairness, and consistency in the process is crucial to achieving the intended benefits while minimizing potential drawbacks.

Download plutus ias current affairs eng med 02nd Aug 2024

PRELIMS QUESTION:

Q. With reference to the subcategorization of the SC/STs, consider the following statements :

1. The state and union governments have the power to subcategorize the SCs/STs. 
2. The president can make a list of the SCs/STs under the provision of Part XVIII of the constitution.
3. Discrimination against the SC/ST is completely prohibited under Part III of the constitution.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only

(b) 2 and 3 only

(c) 1 and 3 only

(d) 1, 2 and 3 

ANSWER: c

MAINS QUESTION

Briefly discuss the recent judgment of the Supreme Court on the subcategorization of the SC/ STs and how would it change the landscape of social justice in india? 

(250 words 15 marks)

Munde Dhananjay Navnath