DIRECT ANSWER: The sub-classification bill seeks to achieve horizontal equity by distributing reservation benefits proportionally among various Scheduled Caste (SC) groups, preventing the monopolization of seats by relatively advanced segments. This mechanism aims to ensure reservation, a tool of social justice, effectively reaches the most marginalized 'left-out' communities within the overarching SC list, addressing pronounced intra-caste disparities and fulfilling the constitutional goal of substantive equality.
Why in News?
A specific state assembly has recently tabled a bill proposing internal quotas or sub-classification within the existing percentage of reservation mandated for Scheduled Castes (SCs) in public services and educational institutions. This legislative action reignites the national debate regarding state competence and the constitutional validity of differential treatment among SC groups, especially in light of conflicting Supreme Court judgments.
What is the Concept / Issue?
The concept involves dividing the single Schedule Caste reservation quota into smaller, distinct quotas based on the relative backwardness or proportion of various communities listed under Article 341. The central legal issue is whether a state legislature has the power to sub-classify the Presidential list of Scheduled Castes (Article 341), which the Supreme Court, in the 2004 E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh case, deemed impermissible, viewing the SC list as a homogenous unit. However, the subsequent five-judge bench decision in the 2020 State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh case referred this matter to a larger bench, acknowledging the need to address intra-caste inequality.
Why is this Issue Important?
- Strategic: Sub-classification is critical for the efficacy of the reservation policy itself. It aims to prevent reservation from becoming an instrument of injustice by benefiting only a few dominant groups, thereby maintaining faith in affirmative action policies.
- Economic: By targeting the most deprived sections within the SC community, it ensures that economic mobility and access to scarce public resources (jobs, education) are dispersed more widely, improving overall Human Development Index (HDI) outcomes for the bottom quartile.
- Geopolitical/Social: It tackles the deep-seated problem of horizontal inequality, or inequality among the beneficiaries themselves. Failure to address this leads to social friction and protests from ‘left-out’ communities demanding a just share of the mandated benefits.
Key Sectors / Dimensions Involved
- Dimension 1: Judicial Interpretation and Precedent: Conflict between the E.V. Chinnaiah ruling (five-judge bench, against sub-classification) and the Davinder Singh ruling (five-judge bench, favouring a relook and referral to a larger bench of seven or more judges).
- Dimension 2: Constitutional Framework (Article 341): The extent of Parliament's exclusive power to define and amend the SC list versus the state’s power to implement reservation policy under Entry 41 (State List) and Article 16(4) and 15(4).
- Dimension 3: Social Justice and Data: The requirement for quantifiable data demonstrating the relative backwardness of various SC communities, moving beyond simple census data to justify internal differentiation.
What are the Challenges?
- The current uncertainty regarding the final verdict from a larger Supreme Court bench creates legal ambiguity for any state legislation passed on sub-classification.
- Arguments that sub-classification violates Article 14 (Equality) by differentiating among groups deemed equally backward by the Presidential Order under Article 341.
- Political challenges include increased fragmentation of the SC vote bank and potential backlash from the advanced SC communities who currently dominate the reservation pool.
UPSC Relevance
Prelims Focus:
- Articles 15(4), 16(4), 341, 342.
- Key Judgments: E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) and State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh (2020).
- Differences between vertical and horizontal reservation.
Mains Angle:
GS Paper II – Social Justice (Mechanisms, Laws, Institutions and Bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of the vulnerable sections) and Polity (Constitutional Framework, Schemes, and Reservation Policy)
How UPSC May Ask This Topic:
“Sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) is essential for achieving distributive justice, yet it faces significant constitutional hurdles. Discuss the arguments for and against SC sub-classification and analyze the current judicial position on this issue.” (15 marks, 250 words)
What is the Way Forward?
- The Central Government should initiate a constitutional amendment providing explicit enabling powers to the states to undertake sub-classification based on compelling reasons and quantifiable data, potentially amending Article 341.
- Establishment of a permanent, neutral commission mandated to collect data on the relative backwardness of SC groups, akin to the mandate given to the Rohini Commission for OBC sub-classification.
- Encouraging the Supreme Court to prioritize the hearing by the larger bench to provide a definitive ruling, ensuring legislative clarity and addressing the critical question of horizontal equity within marginalized communities.