Quota within quota: what happened and what's next?

The Supreme Court's recent judgement about subcategorisation within the Scheduled Caste categories and as a result, overruling its own decision of 2005 will needless to say, have a significant impact on not only the reservation policy but the political landscape as well. The question remains, will the impact be positive or otherwise?

To get to an answer to the same, the article begins with stating the recent judgement, answers the questions that test the constitutionality of the judgement, refutes the novelty of the concept of subcategorisation, dives into the legal evolution of the precedent, discusses the potential consequences that could exacerbate the existing social tension and affect the balance of power within the Scheduled Caste. The article further takes a look at the judgement's likely impacts on various issues in a society, including its political aspect. At last, it concludes with emphasising the importance for reservation to retain its core purpose and not become a political tool.

What is the recent judgement?

On August 1 2024, a seven judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud upheld the validity of subclassification within Scheduled Caste categories in a 6:1 majority, overruling the fivejudge bench decision in E.V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh (2004). The onus is now on the state governments to subclassify among various categories of the Scheduled Caste.

A dissenting opinion was given by Justice Bela Trivedi who reasoned that the etymological history of the term 'Scheduled Caste' when coupled with the Presidential list under Article 341 made the 'Scheduled Caste' a homogenous class. Justice Gavai endorsed for an exclusion of the 'creamy layer' in the Scheduled Caste. It was further held that the reservation has to be limited only to the first generation for instance, if a family member has enjoyed the benefits of reservation and achieved a higher status, the same benefits will not logically be available to the second generation. Furthermore, the court clarified that 100% reservation for any subclass is not permissible. States sub classification will be subjected to judicial review in order to prevent any political misuse.[i]

Upon delving deep into the judgement, one can interpret certain aspects of it as legal fallacies and thus, deeming it violative of certain provisions of law. Therefore, it becomes important to put forth those questions and answer them:

Is the said judgement violative of Article 14 of the constitution? Article 14 of the constitution comprises of two parts, i.e, equality before law and equal protection of law. When one delves into the meaning of 'equality', they will realise that 'equity' was the intention. It means, there must be a parity of treatment under parity of conditions. In this context, the chief justice noted that 'subclassification is a facet of equality'.

The two tests that is to be followed here are, 'intelligible differentia and reasonable nexus', meaning a discernible distinction and a clear and rational link between the classification criterion and the intended outcome or goal of the classification.

It becomes important to understand that there are categories within the Scheduled Caste who are affluent and live a comfortable life. For example, an IAS officer belonging to a scheduled caste, despite doing well financially and enjoying other benefits provided by the government has kids who enjoy these reserved benefits despite living a well to do life. The said subclassification will prioritise the nondominant categories.

Is the subclassification tinkering with the Presidential list?
Article 341(1) states that the President has the authority to designate certain castes, races or tribes (or parts/groups within them) as Scheduled castes for a specific state or union territory, following consultation with the state governor (if applicable), through a public notification. [ii]

Article 341(2) states that the parliament has the power to modify the list of Scheduled castes specified in the Presidential notification by including or excluding through legislation. The chief justice held that such subclassification does not mean including or excluding of the castes, hence, it is not violative of the same. [iii]

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Bela Trivedi opined that the states are not competent to provide such preferential treatment by enacting the affirmative action laws to the categories and even though the subclassification is not per se about the inclusion and exclusion to and from the Presidential list, it stands violative of the same.[iv]

Can the states sub classify within the Scheduled Caste?

Indeed, the states can. It stems from Article 15 and Article 16 of the Indian Constitution. For instance, Article 15(4) states that the states can make any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This coupled with Article 14 establishes that protective discrimination is also a facet of equality. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) take into account the existing inequalities persisting in the Indian society. [v]

Is The Concept Of SubClassification A Novel Development?

The reasoning behind subclassification finds a mention even in the constitutional debates. The debate indeed mentions about the majority category exercising its dominance over the minority where the majority is found taking advantage of the reserved seats. For instance, Dr. Ambedkar being the only Scheduled Caste minister who was a nonchamar is a case in point.[vi]

Additionally, In 1975, the Punjab government divided the prevailing 25% reservation for SCs into two categories. The first category was exclusively reserved for the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities, who were the most economically and educationally disadvantaged in the state. This helped them as they were given the first priority for the seats in education and public employment. The second category encompassed the remaining Scheduled castes communities.[vii]

Likewise, Bihar categorised the SCs into two categories Dalits and Mahadalits. This was done in 2008 and it was done to ensure the implementation of welfare schemes in order of priority wherein Mahadalits are more backward than the Dalits.[viii]

In Tamil Nadu, the state government introduced special reservations for the Arunthathiyars within the SC quota in 2009. Haryana created a new group called 'Deprived Scheduled Castes' in 2020, excluding communities like Chamars and Ravidassia. [ix]

In fact, states like Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Karnataka have called for subcategorisation within the backward castes in order for the benefits to be accrued by those who truly need it. [x]

What led to it?
In 1975, the Punjab government issued a notification that split its 25% Scheduled Caste (SC) reservation into two categories. The first category reserved seats specifically for the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities, recognized as among the most economically and educationally disadvantaged in the state, and they were to be given priority in education and public employment reservations.

The second category included the remaining SC communities. This policy remained in place for nearly three decades, but faced legal challenges in 2004 when a fivejudge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court struck down a similar law introduced by Andhra Pradesh in 2000. The Supreme Court, in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah, ruled that the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 was unconstitutional, as it violated the right to equality. The Andhra Pradesh law had established an extensive list of SC communities and allocated reservation benefits accordingly. [xi]

The court determined that creating subcategories within the Scheduled Castes would violate the right to equality by treating communities within the same category differently. It emphasized that the SC list should be regarded as a single, unified group, as these castes were included in the Schedule due to their shared history of discrimination rooted in untouchability, and therefore should not be differentiated from one another. Additionally, the court highlighted Article 341 of the Constitution, which grants the President the authority to establish the SC list for reservation purposes.

The fivejudge Bench concluded that states do not have the power to alter or modify this list, including through subcategorization. Following the Supreme Court's decision, the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the 2006 case of Dr. Kishan Pal v. State of Punjab, invalidated the 1975 notification.[xii]

In October 2006, just four months after the Punjab & Haryana High Court nullified the earlier notification, the Punjab government attempted to reinstate the law by enacting the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. This Act once again prioritized reservations for the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities. However, in 2010, the High Court struck down this provision once more, prompting the Punjab government to appeal to the Supreme Court.

In 2014, in the case of Davinder Singh v State of Punjab, the Supreme Court referred the appeal to a fivejudge Constitution Bench, to consider whether the 2004 E V Chinnaiah ruling needed reexamination, given that it involved interpreting several constitutional provisions. Such interpretations require a Bench of at least five Supreme Court judges.[xiii]

In 2020, a Constitution Bench led by Justice Arun Mishra concluded that the court's 2004 decision against subcategorization of Scheduled Castes needed to be revisited. The ruling highlighted that the judiciary and the state cannot ignore the evident disparities within the SC category. It challenged the notion that Scheduled Castes are a homogeneous group, asserting that there are significant differences among the communities listed as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and socially and educationally backward classes.

Importantly, since the E V Chinnaiah verdict, the concept of a 'creamy layer'—initially applicable to Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservations—has also been introduced into SC reservations. In the landmark 2018 Jarnail Singh v Lachhmi Narain Gupta case, the Supreme Court affirmed the inclusion of the 'creamy layer' within SCs, setting an income cap for reservation eligibility. This concept was applied to SC promotions for the first time in 2018. [xiv]

States have contended that subclassification is similar to the application of the creamy layer principle. Instead of removing the more advantaged castes from the Scheduled Caste list, the state is simply prioritizing the most disadvantaged castes. Since the Davinder Singh case was heard by a fivejudge Bench, just like in E V Chinnaiah, a larger sevenjudge Bench delivered the recent judgment.

What's next?
Reservation as a policy was introduced to uplift the disadvantaged and to provide them with equal opportunities. The way this tool is used in different periods of time has undergone some changes. The most recent change is the above judgement. Like any other decision, this too, can be argued in different manners. For instance, subcategorisation within a backward caste is going to ensure that the dominant categories/groups do not end up with the benefits that they don't truly need. Madigas and Malas communities are a relevant example in that respect. Malas is a dominant group within Scheduled Caste that have enjoyed the reservation benefits at the cost of Madigas for 75 years.[xv] The fact that this is not uncommon validates that the reservation pool needs to be divided.

This decision is going to lead to more inclusivity bringing the nondominant groups into the mainstream and thus, uplifting them. However, this can exacerbate the already existing tension among the communities. Additionally, even though the dominant groups don't need those benefits the most, the social injustices that backward castes face together is something that will continue to stick with them.

The classification of categories is going to be based on datas and surveys and to make sure they are as accurate as they can be, it is going to require tools like that, thus, building pressure on the administrative workings of the government. However, it will still be difficult to locate the people into a specific group because of the diversity among such groups, for instance.

It is quite evident that the subclassification is going to have a very significant impact on the elections. Elections in many states are caste based and as a result, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes are seen as a good pool of votes because of various policies by the state government. For instance, a political leader might prioritise a group comprising of a large number of people over a group of people that should have been prioritised.

Conclusion
Reservation is and has been a topic of debate ever since the concept was even introduced. Any judgement in that respect is naturally going to lead to various petitions moving to the court. However, this new decision should be viewed as a positive development with respect to what reservation truly stands for Equity. There is a clarity with respect to the provision of creamy layer, as stated by the Law Minister it is only restricted to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs),[xvi] which might be a different point of discussion but it needs to be made sure that the vision of upliftment of the disadvantaged is realised.

The subcategorisation within the Scheduled Caste is an impactful step in that direction. While the dynamics of reservation policy seem to be undergoing change, its essence should remain static. Quota within Quota or not, it should not become a tool for political appeasement.

End Notes:

1. SubClassification Within Reserved Categories | Judgement Summary  Supreme Court Observer (scobserver.in)
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68762/
3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68762/
4. SubClassification Within Reserved Categories | Judgement Summary  Supreme Court Observer (scobserver.in)
5. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/251667/
6. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/622068/
7. The Wire: The Wire News India, Latest News, News from India, Politics, External Affairs, Science, Economics, Gender and Culture
8. The Wire: The Wire News India, Latest News, News from India, Politics, External Affairs, Science, Economics, Gender and Culture
9. The Wire: The Wire News India, Latest News, News from India, Politics, External Affairs, Science, Economics, Gender and Culture
10. The Wire: The Wire News India, Latest News, News from India, Politics, External Affairs, Science, Economics, Gender and Culture
11. https://www.drishtiias.com/dailyupdates/dailynewsanalysis/subcategorisationofscheduledcastes
12. https://www.drishtiias.com/dailyupdates/dailynewsanalysis/subcategorisationofscheduledcastes
13. https://www.drishtiias.com/dailyupdates/dailynewsanalysis/subcategorisationofscheduledcastes
14. https://www.drishtiias.com/dailyupdates/dailynewsanalysis/subcategorisationofscheduledcastes
15. The Wire: The Wire News India, Latest News, News from India, Politics, External Affairs, Science, Economics, Gender and Culture
16. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/creamylayerprincipledoesnotapplytoscstreservationspmassuresbjpmps/article68505657.ece