SUB-CATEGORISATION OF SCHEDULED CASTE: POLITY
NEWS: Telangana became the first state in India to implement sub categorisation
WHAT’S IN THE NEWS?
Telangana implemented sub-categorisation of Scheduled Castes into three groups on Ambedkar Jayanti (14 April 2025) to ensure equitable distribution of reservation benefits based on backwardness. The move is backed by the Justice Shameem Akhter Commission and recent Supreme Court endorsement of data-driven subclassification.
1. Context and Timing
• The Telangana government implemented sub-categorisation of Scheduled Castes (SCs) into three groups starting 14 April 2025, marking Dr. B. R. Ambedkar’s birth anniversary.
• This reform aims to ensure equitable access to reservations among various SC sub-castes based on their degree of backwardness.
2. Basis for Sub-Categorisation
• The categorisation is rooted in the principle of differential backwardness among SC groups.
• The policy was based on the recommendations of the Justice Shameem Akhter Commission, which conducted detailed field studies.
• The Commission received over 8,600 representations from various SC stakeholders and advocacy groups.
3. Formation of Three Groups
• Group 1 (Most Backward SCs):
Includes 15 sub-castes comprising 3.288% of the SC population and allocated 1% reservation.
• Group 2 (Marginally Benefitted SCs):
Includes 18 sub-castes, forming 62.74% of the SC population with 9% reservation.
• Group 3 (Relatively Forward SCs):
Comprising 26 sub-castes, which account for 33.96% of the population and are allocated 5% reservation.
4. Definition and Constitutional Recognition of SCs
• Scheduled Castes are communities historically subjected to untouchability and systemic discrimination.
• Article 341(1): Empowers the President of India to specify SCs for each State and Union Territory.
• Article 341(2): Grants Parliament the authority to add or remove castes from the SC list by law.
5. Concept of Subclassification
• Subclassification refers to dividing a reserved category (like SCs) into smaller, more targeted groups.
• Objective is to ensure that benefits do not disproportionately go to relatively advanced groups, thereby improving access for the most marginalised.
• Inspired by the “creamy layer” principle used in OBC reservations, where the relatively wealthier among OBCs are excluded to better serve the truly needy.
6. Arguments in Favour of Subclassification
• Equitable Distribution: Ensures fairer delivery of reservation benefits to the most deprived SC communities.
• Substantive Equality: Goes beyond formal equality and targets real, data-backed social injustice.
• Historical Correction: Acknowledges and responds to layered marginalisation within SCs.
• Judicial Support: Backed by recent Supreme Court rulings that affirm such subclassification is legal if data-driven.
• Learning from OBC Policy: OBC sub-categorisation and exclusion of creamy layer have shown positive outcomes.
• Dynamic Adaptability: Allows reservation policy to evolve with changing socio-economic realities.
7. Arguments Against Subclassification
• Fragmentation Risk: Could divide SCs politically and socially, weakening their collective voice.
• Deviation from Homogeneity Principle: SCs were originally treated as a homogenous unit under Article 341.
• Administrative Burden: Involves detailed identification, classification, and monitoring of new subgroups.
• Risk of Political Manipulation: Categorisation might be influenced by electoral or political motives rather than genuine data.
• Legal Uncertainty: Conflicting court judgments in the past and continued litigation could stall implementation.
• Fear of Loss of Benefits: Some relatively advanced SC subgroups may feel disadvantaged or excluded from quotas.
8. Landmark Judicial Developments
• E.V. Chinnaiah Case (2005): Held that SCs under Article 341 form a homogeneous group and subclassification is unconstitutional.
• Davinder Singh Case (2014): Referred the matter to a larger constitutional bench for review.
• 2020 Supreme Court Ruling: A 5-judge bench opined that the E.V. Chinnaiah judgment required reconsideration.
• 7-Judge Constitution Bench (2024–25):
• Permitted subclassification to achieve substantive equality.
• States are allowed to create subgroups within SCs based on social and educational indicators.
• Emphasised that such categorisation must be evidence-based and subject to judicial review.
• Four judges suggested applying the creamy layer principle to SCs, though it was not made mandatory.
9. Relevant Constitutional Provisions
• Article 14: Guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws.
• Article 15(4): Allows special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes, including SCs.
• Article 16(1): Ensures equal opportunity in public employment.
• Article 16(4): Provides for reservation in employment for backward classes.
• Article 341(1): Authorises the President to identify SCs in each state.
• Article 341(2): Empowers Parliament to make amendments to the SC list.
• Article 246: Distributes legislative powers between the Centre and States, important for implementing SC welfare.
10. Way Forward and Policy Recommendations
• A specialised commission, like the G. Rohini Commission for OBC sub-categorisation, can be set up to study SC subclassification nationwide.
• Policymakers must engage with SC communities, sociologists, legal experts, and data analysts to ensure fair, transparent, and inclusive policy formation.
• Safeguards should be implemented to preserve unity within SCs while correcting intra-group disparities.
• State and Central governments should collaborate to standardise data collection, monitor outcomes, and avoid politically driven categorisation.
• Public awareness campaigns can help avoid misconceptions and resistance from sub-groups that fear losing benefits.
Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/t-sc-sub-quota-takes-effect-on-ambedkar-anniv/articleshow/120289481.cms