2024-08-04 07:21:42
Author: R.K. Subramanian
The Supreme Court has given a historic verdict on the sub-classification of the Scheduled Caste category, now giving the states the right to classify Scheduled Castes on the basis of their level of development. This decision clarifies the scope of Presidential notifications under Article 341 and paves the way for applying the ‘creamy layer’ principle to Scheduled Castes and Tribes. This decision ends the two-decade-long debate on the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs). The Supreme Court has said in its decision that state governments can divide Scheduled Castes into sub-classes on the basis of their development.
The case started with the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservation) Act of 2000. This law divided 59 scheduled castes into 4 sub-categories so that reservation benefits could be shared equally. Under this law, the 15% SC reservation was divided as follows: SC-A: 1%, SC-B: 7% (including Madiga caste), SC-C: 6% (including Mala caste), SC-D: 1%.
Though the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the law, the Supreme Court struck it down in the EV Chinnaiah case (Justice Santosh Hegde). The apex court had held that the state legislature had no power to change the list of Scheduled Castes and that the Scheduled Castes were a homogenous, homogeneous group historically subjected to untouchability.
On the request of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly, the Central Government constituted the Usha Mehra Commission to examine the constitutional, statutory and legal aspects of sub-classification of Scheduled Castes in Andhra Pradesh. The Commission (2008) in its report observed that all the benefits of reservation have been limited to a few castes, while most of the Scheduled Castes have been deprived of it. The Commission suggested sub-dividing the Scheduled Castes by adding a new clause (3) to Article 341 of the Constitution.
The central government sought the states’ views on the report. 14 states (Gujarat, Odisha, Kerala, West Bengal) opposed the sub-categorisation, while 7 states (Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Punjab, Haryana) supported it. Significantly, 5 states (Bihar, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh) which account for nearly 50% of the SC population did not take any decision. These states said that the social, educational and economic realities of different states and union territories are different. Therefore, the rule applicable to Andhra Pradesh may not be applicable to other states.
This decision of the Supreme Court is historic for three reasons:
1. It is now clear that Presidential notifications under Article 341(1) of the Constitution can distinguish between Scheduled Castes.
2. This distinction must be logical and based on facts.
3. The data should show that the caste which is being given preference in reservation is under-represented.
The ‘creamy layer’ principle will now be applicable to scheduled castes and tribes as well, although its conditions will be different from OBCs.
This decision has once again brought to the fore the fact that each caste has its own history. However, all of them have faced severe social discrimination and untouchability. For example, the Mala community has been agricultural labourers, while the Madigas were leather workers. Both these communities have faced discrimination, exclusion and persecution for centuries.
But apart from brutal social discrimination, they have very little in common. There are not even inter-caste marriages. While the Mala community, due to their progressive nature, have taken to education and risen to higher positions, most Madigas are stuck to their profession for their livelihood and live in poverty, deprived of education.
Special provisions will now have to be made to provide the benefits of reservation to such communities. A scientific survey of the representation of these communities in public service and other benefits of reservation will have to be conducted. This is a difficult task, because the survey will have to prove how much benefit each community has availed so far. Every state will have to conduct this study at its own level following the research methodology. This will also strengthen the demand for a comprehensive socio-economic caste census.
Classification of Scheduled Castes at the national level is not possible because the situation in every state is different. The opposition of most states to sub-classification of Scheduled Castes shows that a situation like that in Andhra Pradesh cannot happen in Madhya Pradesh or Uttar Pradesh.
Therefore, the initiative for sub-classification will be up to the state governments, although it will be the prerogative of Parliament to make sub-classification, not the state legislatures. Most importantly, the exclusion of the ‘creamy layer’ from SC reservation is bound to lead to agitations. This is because the basis for classifying certain communities as SCs is social exclusion, not economic backwardness.
This will become a contentious issue even if the issue of sub-classification is resolved. The legal hurdles have now been cleared, but the road to sub-classification of Scheduled Castes remains long and difficult.
(The author is former Secretary, Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment)