• Although both the Criminal Tribes Act (CTA) and the first synchronous Census operations in India commenced in 1871, Census documents began explicitly referring to “criminal tribes” only from 1911 onward.
• The provincial Census reports of 1911 and 1931 shed light on how these communities were officially recorded and categorized under that label. The 1931 Census marked the final instance when such groups were distinctly enumerated.
• After the repeal of the CTA and the subsequent denotification of these communities, later Censuses discontinued their separate identification. This decision was consistent with the post-Independence policy that caste enumeration—except for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes—was unnecessary.
• Efforts to address the condition of these communities, however, had already begun prior to their formal denotification. In 1949, the government established the Ayyangar Commission to examine related issues.
• By 1952, with the recognition of “backward classes” as a category distinct from SCs and STs, many denotified groups were included in such lists under the term “Vimukt Jatis.”
• Over the decades following Independence, most of these communities were gradually incorporated into the categories of SCs, STs, or Other Backward Classes.
• In 1998, noted writer Mahasweta Devi and scholar G. N. Devy initiated the Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes Rights Action Group (DNT-RAG).
• Their advocacy contributed to the creation of a technical advisory group and eventually led to the formation of the first National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes under the chairmanship of B. S. Renke.
• This Commission submitted its recommendations for the welfare of DNTs in 2008. Subsequently, another national commission was constituted under Bhiku Ramji Idate, which presented its report in 2017.
• Each of these commissions underscored the fundamental challenge of properly identifying and classifying DNT communities, emphasizing that comprehensive and accurate categorization would require a dedicated Census enumeration.
• According to the Idate Commission’s most recent assessment, nearly 1,200 communities were identified as belonging to the DNT category, most of which had already been placed within the existing SC, ST, or OBC lists.
• In addition, the Commission identified approximately 268 denotified communities that remained unclassified. A study commissioned by NITI Aayog and conducted by the Anthropological Survey of India recommended appropriate classification for these 268 groups. However, the findings of this study have not been implemented and currently remain pending consideration

Beyond verbal commitments to community representatives that they would be included in official counts, there has been no clarity regarding the methodology or mechanism for carrying out such enumeration.

Organizations representing Denotified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (DNTs) have explicitly called for the inclusion of a dedicated column or question in Census questionnaires to enable their proper identification. This position has also been supported by scholars such as G. N. Devy, who have consistently advocated for a separate Census exercise specifically focused on DNT communities.

Nevertheless, official statements from the Union Government suggest that there is currently no plan to introduce a separate classification category for DNTs in the Census

Source: The Hindu

MATERNITY BENEFIT TO ADOPTIVE MOTHERS

• The original 1961 legislation did not have specific provisions for mothers who adopt, and these were inserted with the 2017 amendment to the Maternity Benefit Act
• According to Section 5(4) of the amended Act, “A woman who legally adopts a child below the age of three months or a commissioning mother shall be entitled to maternity benefit for a period of twelve weeks from the date the child is handed over to the adopting mother or the commissioning mother, as the case may be.”
• The term “commissioning mother” refers to a surrogate mother and has been defined as “a biological mother who uses her egg to create an embryo implanted in any other woman.”
• A woman adopting a child older than three months gets no benefits
• The PIL challenges this provision on grounds of being “discriminatory” and “arbitrary” towards adoptive mothers
• “Section 5(4) apart from being discriminatory and arbitrary towards the adoptive mothers, also arbitrarily discriminates against orphaned, abandoned or surrendered children above the age of three months, which is completely incompatible to the object of the Maternity Benefit Act as well as the Juvenile Justice Act,” the plea contends
• Dubbing the purported benefit of 12 weeks’ maternity leave as “mere lip service”, the petition also states that when compared to the 26 weeks’ benefit for biological mothers, the provision fails to stand the basic scrutiny of Part III of the Constitution, which is linked to the concept of non-arbitrariness

• The Maternity Benefit Act was originally passed by Parliament on December 12, 1961, to regulate the employment of women in “certain establishments” for the period before and after childbirth and “to provide for maternity benefit and certain other benefits.”
• Originally it applied to every establishment “being a factory, mine or plantation” and later in 1973, it was extended to “any such establishment belonging to Government” and “every establishment where persons are employed for the exhibition of equestrian, acrobatic and other performances.”
• It repealed the Mines Maternity Benefit Act, 1941 and Maternity Benefit Act, 1929
• Section 4 of the 1961 Act prohibited the employment of or work by women during a certain period and under sub-section (1) stated, “No employer shall knowingly employ a woman in any establishment during the six weeks immediately following the day of her delivery or her miscarriage.”
• The right to paid maternity leaves was also given under Section 5 of the 1961 Act, although the period of such leave could not exceed twelve weeks, “that is to say, six weeks up to and including the day of her delivery and six weeks immediately following that day.”
• Additionally, no woman could be allowed to avail maternity benefits if she had not worked in the establishment for at least “one hundred and sixty days in the twelve months immediately preceding the date of her expected delivery.”
• These benefits would be allowed without dismissing the female worker from service or reduction of wages
• Violating provisions of the Act could result in three months’ punishment, with or without a fine
• On March 9, 2017, the Maternity Benefits (Amendment) Act 2017, was passed by Parliament, which brought about key changes to the original Act

• The Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 amended Section 5 of the erstwhile Act to allow 26 weeks of paid leave after childbirth, although only to biological mothers
• The amendment also inserted Section 5(4) which said that adoptive or surrogate mothers legally adopting a child below three months will be entitled to a maternity benefit period of 12 weeks from the date the child is handed over to the mother
• Further, it inserted provisions to allow women to work from home under Section 5(5) which said, “…Where the nature of work assigned to a woman is of such nature that she may work from home, the employer may allow her to do so after availing of the maternity benefit for such period and on such conditions as the employer and the woman may mutually agree.”
• Under the amended Act, Section 11 was also inserted to say that, “Every establishment having fifty or more employees shall have the facility of creche within such distance as may be prescribed, either separately or along with common facilities.” 
•  It is also mandated that the employer allows four visits a day to the creche by the woman as well as rest intervals for her
• However, a much-received criticism of this Act is that it does not apply to the unorganised sector

• Women in the unorganised sector cannot avail the benefits of the Maternity Benefit(Amendment) Act 2017
• In 2020, a report by TeamLease – a human resource company, revealed that even three years after the amendment Act was passed, it was yet to “deliver a positive impact on job opportunities for women.”
• Besides this, the report said that women’s participation dropped in more than five out of 10 sectors since the implementation of the Act
• The report suggests that 7 out of the 10 sectors reviewed were expected to show positive momentum in women workforce participation in the medium term (1-4 years) owing to the Act
• However, 5 of the 10 sectors are lagging, and instead indicating a drop in the share of women in their workforce, as per the report
• After maternity, women face several challenges. Most of the women (30 per cent) cited wage cuts followed by resistance or lack of support from family (25 per cent) and access to childcare (20 per cent), as per the report.