THE recent Supreme Court judgment has once again stirred up debate on the issue of sub-classification of Scheduled Castes. By a majority decision, the Supreme Court held that the classification of Scheduled Castes is constitutional and that States have the authority to make decisions on the issue based on clear guidelines. Only one judge dissented from this majority opinion. The court has left the decision of undertaking classification to the discretion of the States. Although the case before the Bench primarily concerned the States, the spirit of the judgment applies to the Centre as well. Four of the judges, as part of their judgments, also raised the issue of the ‘creamy layer’ and expressed their opinions in favour of introducing it for the Scheduled Castes. On this aspect, the chief justice and another judge chose not to make any comment.
Related articles
In 2005, the Supreme Court, upon hearing various petitions challenging categorisation by the Andhra Pradesh government, held that the categorisation was unconstitutional. Subsequently, this judgment was challenged through a number of petitions, which were heard together by a seven-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that delivered its judgment on August 1, 2024.
Now, after so much controversy and litigation, it can be hoped that, at least for the time being, the Supreme Court’s clear verdict on the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes has settled all the constitutional and legal aspects of this long-pending issue.
Let us now examine some pertinent issues related to sub-classification that are being debated.
The court categorically rejected the argument that Article 341 of the Constitution does not permit any sub-classification. The court also disagreed with the contention that the States have no jurisdiction in matters of reservation for SCs and STs, and that only Parliament has that right and therefore, the issue of sub-classification solely falls within the purview of Parliament. Rejecting these objections, the court made it clear that the Constitution does not prohibit States from undertaking sub-classification based on proper guidelines, if they so desire.
We can see that the issue of the jurisdiction of Parliament and the States concerning sub-classification is not the main issue. If, in principle, sub-classification is justifiable, then the powers of Parliament and the States in initiating sub-classification become a practical question that can be resolved easily.
The court has justified the principle of sub-classification, stating that it will help in realising the constitutional goal of achieving substantive equality. The argument that Scheduled Castes (SCs) are a homogeneous group that cannot be divided was rejected by the court. The court pointed out that, although various sub-castes of SCs are uniformly subjected to the practice of untouchability, there are significant disparities among them in their social, economic, and educational levels. Considering this aspect of heterogeneity within the group, the Supreme Court viewed sub-classification as a means of achieving inner equality among SCs. This emphasis on substantive equality by the court is a welcome aspect of the judgment.
Some objections were raised against the Supreme Court’s judgment. One of them alleges that the court gave its judgment without proper or adequate information or data. This objection is unfounded. The published reports of several commissions appointed by State governments, which are available in the public domain, clearly reveal the uneven levels of development among the sub-castes of SCs. Further, the data from the 2011 General Census pertaining to the sub-castes of SCs unambiguously support this on a much broader scale.
Some argue that while there are uneven levels of development among sub-castes within SCs, sub-classification is not the ideal means to address this unevenness. Instead, they advocate for special measures by the State to support the backward sections among the SCs, enabling them to compete with those who are relatively more advanced.
While the suggestion of providing special support to the backward sections among SCs is not objectionable, this measure cannot be an alternative to sub-classification. Providing support to the backward sections can, at best, supplement classification but not substitute it. It is important to remember that reservation is a right provided by the Constitution, and if sub-classification is implemented, it remains a right. However, even if the State adopts laudable measures to support backward sections of SCs, they do not constitute a right. They are entirely dependent on the mercy of the respective governments.
Another significant argument against sub-classification is that it undermines the basic criteria used for formulating the concept of reservations. According to this viewpoint, the practice of untouchability, which should be fundamental in deciding reservations, is diluted by the court by introducing other unrelated concepts like backwardness, adequate representation, etc., which is therefore objectionable. This argument does not stand on any reasonable basis.
Sub-classification is a measure intended to address the internal disparities among the various sub-castes of SCs. There is no basis to assume that this measure stands in opposition to the basic concept of reservation.
If we examine the historical background of reservations and the provisions made in the Constitution, including those made for other sections that do not fall into the category of victims of untouchability, we can see that there is no single, overarching criterion for granting reservations. In fact, reservation is not a weapon designed to directly confront the evil practice of untouchability. Instead, it is meant to empower SCs by providing opportunities for educational and economic development, enabling them to acquire the necessary autonomy to overcome their social oppression. This is why the Constitution provided special provisions to directly address the obnoxious practice of untouchability, declaring it a crime. On that basis, governments have enacted numerous laws to prevent such crimes. When reservations are intended to empower vulnerable sections, it is entirely reasonable to ensure that they are distributed equitably among those sections.
Some people are expressing concern that sub-classification will result in more vacancies remaining unfilled, which could subsequently be diverted to the general quota. However, sub-classification and diversion to the general quota are two separate issues that should not be clubbed together.
The issue of diversion to the general quota has been under debate long before the demand for sub-classification arose. Struggles against the diversion of unfilled vacancies to the general quota led to the introduction of the system of backlog vacancies. Despite this, attempts to divert unfilled vacancies to the general quota continue even today. Recently, the UGC issued guidelines allowing such diversion, but these instructions were quickly withdrawn in the face of strong objections. If similar attempts are made in the future, they must be firmly opposed. However, mixing this issue with sub-classification is incorrect. Sub-classification is an internal matter within the SC community and only involves the subdivision of the existing quota. When we consider the entire SC community as one group, it does not stand to lose anything. If vacancies in one sub-category cannot be filled from within that sub-category, they can be filled from other sub-categories. If vacancies remain unfilled even after that, they can be kept in backlog. This ensures that vacancies do not get diverted away from the SC quota altogether. When States and the Centre introduce sub-classification, it must be ensured that all proper legal and constitutional safeguards are put in place to prevent any diversion out of the concerned category of reservation.
In some circles, there is apprehension that sub-classification will lead to the disruption of dalit unity. It is important to understand that it is not the demand for sub-classification that is creating division. Rather, it is the growing inequalities and uneven distribution of benefits among the various sub-castes of SCs, and the resulting discontent, that are creating divisions and giving rise to the demand for categorisation. Therefore, opposing sub-classification will not bring unity; in fact, the opposite is true. If the relatively advanced sections among SCs come forward to support sub-classification, the friction among communities can be eased, and the efforts of malicious elements who promote discord for their own self-interest can be thwarted.
Another argument against sub-classification is that it has become a tool in the hands of anti-reservation parties functioning, which use it for their vote-bank politics. It is true that potent anti reservation parties have mastered the technique of pitting one community against another, instigating conflicts, and rallying one community in opposition to others. The BJP is particularly adept in this regard. However, this cannot be an excuse for rejecting sub-classification. We can defeat the oppressive tactic of divide and rule only by acknowledging the uneven development among various sub-castes and building unity through rational solutions, not by avoiding the issue.
If anyone believes that the Supreme Court’s approval of sub-classification will completely resolve the problems of less-benefited sub-castes among SCs, they are likely to be disappointed.
In fact, the system of reservations itself has not fully addressed the social oppression and backwardness of dalits. Moreover, with the advent of neo-liberal policies (implemented by all anti-reservation parties), reservations have been further diluted and are increasingly becoming nominal. In this context, sub-classification cannot be expected to have any big impact. It may help distribute the meagre reservations more evenly among communities, but the greater benefit we can hope for is that it may pave the way for greater unity among SC communities.
The real solution lies in addressing the fundamental issues that have led to the backwardness of SCs. Land relations continue to confine dalits to the lowest rung of the social order even today. We must break these land relations and ensure land distribution takes place. Quality education, healthcare, employment, food, and shelter should be secured as rights. Reservation should also be extended to the private sector. Only when these demands are achieved can dalits and other backward sections of society overcome their backwardness and move beyond the limitations of reservations.
While addressing the issue of sub-classification, four of the seven judges on the bench also commented on the issue of the ‘creamy layer.’ They separately expressed their opinion in favour of introducing the concept of the creamy layer among SCs and STs. Even though this does not form the operative part of the judgment, it has become a hot topic of debate. SCs have historically been property-less sections of society, and this remains the situation even today. There is still no clear formation of a propertied class within SCs. Citing a few politicians, some IAS and IPS officers, or a few industry owners to justify the introduction of a creamy layer is inappropriate. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is accepted that some families among SCs have acquired wealth and social status, and that their number is considerable, there is no guarantee that this wealth and social status have reached such a secure and non-relapsable level that they can be automatically passed on to the next generation. In such a situation, it is irrelevant to raise the issue of the creamy layer for SCs or STs.
Courtesy: ‘People’s Democracy’
