SUB QUOTAS OF SCHEDULED CASTE (SC)
- The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservation) Ordinance, 1999, and the subsequent Act created four groups—A, B, C, and D—within the Scheduled Castes, each allocated different reservation percentages.
- This sub-classification aimed to address the varying levels of advancement among the communities listed as Scheduled Castes and to ensure representation for the less advanced castes. The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the Act against legal challenges.
- However, the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench of five judges declared this sub-classification unconstitutional. In the November 2004 judgment in E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court emphasized that under Article 341 of the Constitution, the President is responsible for notifying the Scheduled Castes list, which can only be altered by an act of Parliament, not by further notifications.
- The Bench ruled that once listed under Article 341, Scheduled Castes form a single homogeneous class, and state legislatures lack the authority to further classify them into separate groups
- Six of the seven judges have now determined that the 2004 ruling was incorrect. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justice Manoj Mishra, concluded that SC communities should not be considered a homogeneous class as previously judged.
- He contested the notion that listing SCs creates a presumption of uniform status among them. While SCs share a common constitutional identity due to their shared experiences of untouchability and discrimination, this does not negate the diversity within these communities.
- Citing both historical and empirical evidence, Chief Justice Chandrachud demonstrated that significant differences exist among SC communities, with instances where some SC groups have faced discrimination from others within the same category.
- Thus, sub-classification is permissible if it is based on a clear and rational distinction with a valid purpose. This sub-classification is subject to judicial review, and the State must justify it with empirical data.
- Chief Justice Chandrachud also clarified that sub-classification does not alter the Presidential list of SCs and does not breach Article 341, which gives the President exclusive authority to notify Scheduled Castes.
- Article 341 serves to define who falls under the SC category, but states have the autonomy to recognize varying degrees of backwardness and provide special provisions or extend reservation benefits accordingly.
- The new ruling is anticipated to encourage states to allocate sub-quotas for the most marginalized Dalit sections who have not benefited from reservations to date.
- In her dissent, Justice Bela Trivedi upheld the Chinnaiah doctrine, arguing that sub-classification of a homogeneous class is impermissible and constitutes an alteration of the President’s list under Article 341
- The creamy layer concept is currently applicable only to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and has not been extended to Dalit communities. Justice B. R. Gavai, who concurs with the Chief Justice in a separate opinion, elaborated on the need to identify more advanced members within the Scheduled Castes and exclude them from affirmative action benefits.
- Justice Gavai argued that treating all members of a community equally may not be just, especially when considering differences in social and economic status.
- He questioned whether the children of IAS or IPS officers should be given the same benefits as children from remote villages within the same community, given their differing access to resources and opportunities.
- He emphasized that combining such disparate groups under the same category would undermine the principle of equality. However, he also noted that the criteria for excluding the creamy layer among SCs should differ from those used for OBCs. Three other judges supported his perspective. Despite this, their opinions do not mandate the government to apply the creamy layer concept to SCs, as this issue was not directly addressed in the case at hand
|
For Prelims: Current events of national and international importance
For Mains: GS-II: Government policies and intervention
|
|
Previous Year Questions
Prelims 1.Consider the following statements about Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) in India: (UPSC CSE 2019) 1. PVTGs reside in 18 states and one Union Territory. 2. A stagnant or declining population is one of the criteria for determining PVTG status. 3. There are 95 PVTGs officially notified in the country so far. 4. Irular and Konda Reddi tribes are included in the list of PVTGs. Which of the statements given above are correct? (a) 1, 2 and 3 (b) 2, 3 and 4 (c) 1, 2 and 4 (d) 1, 3 and 4 Answer (c)
Given this analysis, the correct statements are 1, 2, and 4 Mains 1.What are the two major legal initiatives by the state since independence addressing discrimination against Scheduled Tribes (STs)? (UPSC CSE 2017) |
