Sub-categorisation of SCs in Andhra Pradesh

Syllabus :GS 2/Governance  

In News

• The Andhra Pradesh Cabinet approved the one-member commission’s recommendations on the sub-categorisation of Scheduled Castes (SCs) to ensure equitable distribution of benefits.
  • The demand for sub-categorisation has been ongoing for over 30 years, with earlier efforts including the Justice Ramachandra Rao Commission in 1996.

Sub-categorisation

• It  divides the SC category into smaller sub-castes to ensure fair distribution of benefits, especially in reservations for education, employment, and affirmative action.

Historical Context & SC Rulings

• In 1975, Punjab issued a notification giving first preference in SC reservations to the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities, two of the most backward communities in the state. 
• This was challenged in 2004 after the apex court struck down a similar law in Andhra Pradesh in E V Chinnnaiah.
  • SC held that SCs and STs form a single, indivisible class once included in the Presidential list under Article 341/342.
  • Said States could not sub-classify or create quotas within SC/ST reservations.
• In 2020, the Supreme Court  ruled that the 2004 decision in E.V. Chinnaiah should be reconsidered, recognizing inequality within the SC list.
  • It  acknowledged that there are “unequals within the list of SCs” and noted the concept of the “creamy layer” now applies to SCs, as established in the 2018 ruling in Jarnail Singh v Lachhmi Narain Gupta.
• In  2024, the Supreme Court allowed sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to extend affirmative action benefits, with strict guidelines for its implementation.
  • The ruling clarified that Article 341 does not prevent sub-classification; it only limits the President’s power to add or exclude SC groups.

Arguments in Favour 

• States argued that some SCs/STs are underrepresented despite reservation, leading to proposals for separate quotas within the SC/ST categories.
• SCs are not a “homogeneous class”; some are more disadvantaged than others, justifying sub-classification.
  • Article 14 allows sub-classification to achieve substantive equality, addressing differences within SC/ST groups.
• It could lead to a caste census to assess representation and address inequities in reservation distribution.

Arguments against 

• Some argue that Sub-classification would open the door for political manipulation of reservations, violating the constitutional intent.
• It violates the Constitution by altering the President’s list of SCs, which can only be changed by Parliament.

Conclusion and Way Forward 

• States might have the legal backing to sub-classify SCs, but it must ensure the process is backed by data and is fair, with judicial oversight to prevent misuse.
• Sub-classification must be based on “quantifiable and demonstrable data,” not political motives, to ensure equitable benefits among different SC/ST groups.
• States must devise a policy to exclude the “creamy layer” (wealthier members of backward classes) within SC/STs from reservation benefits to achieve true equality.

Source :TH