Oppressed Among the Oppressed: The SC/ST Sub-categorisation

On August 1, 2024, the Supreme Court of India passed a landmark ruling which allows state governments to create sub-classifications within the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) categories for the purpose of reservations in education and public employment.

This decision overruled the 2004 judgement in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, which had previously deemed SCs and STs as a homogeneous group, thus prohibiting any further classification. The recent ruling, delivered by a seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, emphasised that SCs and STs are not a monolithic entity but rather consist of diverse groups with varying degrees of social and educational backwardness.

However, the court has mandated that any sub-classification must be based on “quantifiable and demonstrable data” regarding the inadequacy of representation of specific sub-groups, ensuring that the process of sub-categorisation is not arbitrary or politically motivated. Additionally, the judgement introduced the controversial concept of a “creamy layer” within SCs and STs, suggesting that more affluent individuals within these groups could be excluded from reservation benefits, a ruling that has sparked significant debate and dissent among various political and social factions.

Critics of the judgement argue that the ruling could serve to fracture the harmony between disadvantaged groups resulting in political benefits to certain parties. A ‘Bharat Bandh’ (general strike) was also held on August 21 with varying success to protest against the judgment. Regardless, the ruling has significant implications for the reservation policy in India, potentially reshaping the landscape of affirmative action and addressing long-standing disparities among different SC and ST communities.

Jargon

sub-categorisation: The process of dividing a larger group into smaller, more specific categories based on certain criteria, in this case, within the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) for the purpose of reservations.
Scheduled Castes (SC): A group of historically disadvantaged communities in India, identified in the Constitution, who have faced social discrimination and exclusion, particularly through the practice of untouchability.
Scheduled Tribes (ST): Indigenous communities in India recognised in the Constitution, often facing similar social and economic disadvantages as SCs.
Creamy Layer: A term used to refer to the relatively more affluent and educated individuals within a disadvantaged group, who may be excluded from reservation benefits to ensure that the most needy receive assistance.

Viewpoints 💭

‘Left’ Viewpoint

Ideological Differences

‘Right’ Viewpoint

The judgement undermines the unity and collective rights of SC and ST communities, potentially leading to further marginalisation.
Sub-classification could exacerbate social divisions and discrimination within SC and ST groups, rather than addressing the root causes of inequality.
The introduction of a ‘creamy layer’ within SCs and STs is seen as an unnecessary and harmful measure that could exclude deserving individuals from reservation benefits.
The ruling could lead to political misuse and manipulation, with states potentially using sub-classification to serve electoral interests rather than genuine social justice.
There is a need for comprehensive data and empirical evidence to support any sub-classification, as current data may not accurately reflect the socio-economic status of all SC and ST groups.

The left views the judgement as potentially divisive, arguing it could fragment SC and ST communities and undermine their collective struggle for equality, while the right sees it as a means to address internal disparities and promote fairer distribution of benefits.
Left-leaning perspectives emphasise the risk of political manipulation and misuse of sub-classification, cautioning that it could be driven by electoral motives rather than genuine social justice, whereas the right believes that the ruling provides a framework for states to address real inequalities based on empirical data.
The left is critical of the introduction of a ‘creamy layer’ within SCs and STs, viewing it as an unnecessary measure that could exclude deserving individuals, while the right supports this concept, arguing it ensures that reservations benefit the most disadvantaged and prevents more affluent individuals from monopolising these benefits.
From the left’s viewpoint, the ruling could exacerbate existing social divisions and discrimination within SC and ST groups, whereas the right argues that acknowledging the diversity and varying degrees of backwardness within these communities is essential for achieving substantive equality.
The left stresses the need for comprehensive and accurate data to support any sub-classification, warning that current data may not reflect the true socio-economic status of all SC and ST groups, while the right believes that the judgement’s requirement for empirical evidence ensures that sub-classification will be based on quantifiable and demonstrable data, promoting fairness and accountability.

The judgement is a necessary step to ensure that the most marginalised sub-groups within SC and ST communities receive adequate representation and benefits.
Sub-classification acknowledges the diversity and varying degrees of backwardness within SC and ST groups, promoting a more equitable distribution of resources.
The introduction of a ‘creamy layer’ within SCs and STs can help ensure that reservation benefits reach those who are truly in need, preventing more affluent individuals from monopolising these benefits.
The ruling empowers states to address inter-se inequalities among SC and ST communities, aligning with the principles of substantive equality and social justice.
Historical advantages enjoyed by certain SC groups over others necessitate targeted measures like sub-classification to correct imbalances and achieve fair representation.

Prominent Voices 📣

From the ‘Left’

From the ‘Right’

Akhilesh Yadav (Chief, Samajwadi Party): Supported the protests against the judgment as a necessary check on government power and highlighted the significance of peaceful movements for the rights of the marginalised. ¹ ²
Justice Bela M Trivedi (Supreme Court Judge): Asserted that SCs constitute a homogeneous class that should not be altered by state intervention, supporting the previous legal framework. ³ ⁴
Chandrashekhar Azad (Chief, Bhim Army): Asserted that the Dalit community will not remain silent in the face of attacks on their rights and emphasised the importance of public mobilisation. ⁵ ²
A Suresh (YSRCP Leader): Emphasised the importance of using the judgment for SC upliftment rather than opportunistic politics. ⁵
Chirag Paswan (Leader, LJP): Opposed the sub-classification judgement and indicated plans to appeal it. ⁶ ⁷

Dr Krishnaswamy (Leader, Puthiya Tamizhagam Party): Challenged the sub-categorisation in court, highlighting the need for equitable representation.
Faizan Mustafa (Legal Expert): Suggested that the verdict strengthens the argument for a caste census to better understand and address the needs of various communities within SCs and STs. ⁸
Gautam Bhatia (Constitutional Law Scholar): Critiqued the discussions on the creamy layer as lacking legal enforceability, viewing them as non-binding advisories. ⁹ ¹⁰
Ashok Bharti (Chairman, NACDAOR): The government is inciting conflict among SCs, STs, and OBCs and must release caste data to clarify representation. ¹¹ ¹²
Dr Suman Damera (Assistant Professor, Mizoram University): The need for empirical evidence to rationally divide the quota among Dalit sub-groups is crucial for effective implementation of the judgment.

Show less

N Chandrababu Naidu (Chief Minister, Andhra Pradesh): Welcomed the ruling, recalling past efforts for SC sub-categorisation initiated by his government.
A Revanth Reddy (Chief Minister,Telangana): Thanked the Supreme Court for allowing sub-classifications and expressed intent to implement it promptly. ⁵
B.L. Verma (Minister of State for Social Justice): Criticised the Congress and BSP for playing politics regarding the SC/ST communities. ¹
Eknath Shinde (Chief Minister, Maharashtra): Said that his government is committed to expediting the sub-classification process. ¹³
Justice B R Gavai (Supreme Court Judge): Advocated for sub-classification to ensure that less privileged SCs receive special treatment, likening the resistance to sub-classification to historical oppression by higher castes. ³ ¹⁴

Justice Manoj Misra (Supreme Court Judge): Supported the notion that inter-se backwardness must be addressed through sub-classification to ensure effective representation. ¹⁵
Gurminder Singh (Advocate General, Punjab): Emphasised that the E.V. Chinnaiah ruling was incorrect and that states have the authority to adjust the classes under the Presidential list to ensure adequate representation. ¹⁶
Faggan Singh Kulaste (MP, BJP): Accused the opposition of politicising the issue despite the government’s clarity on the creamy layer provision. ¹⁷
Brij Lal (MP, BJP): The verdict addresses disparities within the SCs. ⁵ ¹⁸
Akkivarapu Mohana Rao (Leader, Jana Sena Party): The judgment will significantly benefit the most backward Madiga community. ¹⁹
Govind Naresh Madiga (State Chief, MRPS): Expressed support for the implementation of sub-categorisation and acknowledged the need for reservations for any backward castes. ²⁰
A. Malyadri (General Secretary, KVPS): The government must act swiftly to implement sub-classification and address the backlog of vacant posts. ²¹