SC/ST RESERVATION AND SUBCATEGORIZATION

 73.1) Why in the news? 

Recently, the honorable Supreme Court of India has given an important verdict regarding SC/ST reservation.  The Supreme Court has ordered that sub-classification can be done among SC/ST for quotas.

Image Source

73.2) Reservation -need of it and article related to it :

Reservation in Bharat is all about reserving access to seats in government jobs, educational institutions, and even legislatures to certain sections of the population. The reservation is generally given for the progress of Backward-class people. If we talk about the context of the topic, Article 341 is related to the scheduled caste reservation. 

Article 341-1: The President of India may notify the caste of any state or Union territory ( by the consultation of the governor) deemed to be a Scheduled caste in relation to that state or Union territory.

2: Parliament may make the law on the above notification issued by the President.

73.3) Some important decisions by the judiciary on the case of SC/ST reservation:

73.3.1) POLICY OF PUNJAB GOVERNMENT:

In 1975, the government of Punjab came up with the policy to distribute the SC quota seat between the two communities, i.e., Valmiki Majhabi Sikhs and other SC castes. This rule was regulated for 30 years.  In 2006, this policy was rejected by the High Court of Punjab and Chandigarh. After the 2006 verdict, the Punjab government came again with a new reservation quota policy for these two groups. But again, it was rejected by the High Court in 2010. This verdict was reached in the Supreme Court, in which the Punjab government suggested the Supreme Court for sub-categorization of Scheduled caste reservations like creamy and non-creamy layers in OBC castes.

73.3.2) Indira Sawhney and others versus Union of India:

    This case is popularly known as  MANDAL VERDICT. This was a landmark case public interest litigation case in 1992 that challenged the government’s decision to implement the Mandal Commission's recommendations for reservation for socially and economically Backward classes (SEBCs). This case was heard by nine judges on the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court.  Some important points regarding this case are mentioned below:

     1) The state’s power is limited, and the quota can’t exceed 50 %.

     2) The concept of SOCIAL BACKWARDNESS was emphasized, and 11 indicators were established to determine backwardness.

     3) The concept of the creamy layer was introduced, which was only applied to other Backward classes.

     73.3.3) EV CHINNAYYA VS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (2004):

      No subcategorization is permitted in Scheduled caste reservations because it ignores the right to equality.

     73.3.4) Recent verdict:

      In  2020, a constitutional bench of 5 judges of the Supreme Court started rethinking the verdict of EV Chinnayya vs State of Andhra Pradesh.  After some time, a bench of seven judges was established, which was headed by the honorable CJI. After listening to all the sides of this case, the decision was kept safe in January 2024. Here are the some important points of this verdict are given below :

     1) Sub quota is not against the right of equality.

    2) State government can subcategorize in SC/ ST reservation quota. So that the categories that require reservations will be more profitable.

    3) The decision was passed by 7 Judges by 6:1. The 6 judges who were in favor are mentioned below: JUSTICE PANKAJ MITTHAL, JUSTICE VIKRAM NAATH, JUSTICE BR GAVAI, JUSTICE MANOJ MISHRA, JUSTICE SC SHARMA. There was only one judge who opposed the decision, JUSTICE BELA M.  TRIVEDI. She said that Article 142 cannot be used for the formation of a new building. She supported EV CHINNAYYA S STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH's decision.  She also said that supporting subcategorization is just like disturbing articles 341-2.

     There are  two important conditions regarding the sub-categorization:

    1) The one particular caste that comes under the Scheduled caste reservation cannot get a 100 percent quota.

      2) There must be perfect data before the subcategorization of that caste.

    Also, this decision of the Supreme Court is only given for government jobs. There is no statement regarding admission to educational institutions and seats in parliament.

Impact of recent verdict:

Political parties will play a victim card to take all the votes of subcategories of Scheduled castes. Now, in the election, parties will promise to give them reservations if the public will vote for them.

There will be a loss to those political parties which have fixed Dalit vote banks. The impact will be more seen in the states where the population of Scheduled caste is more than 15 percent.

Also, the subcategorization will end the dominance of a particular caste in the Scheduled caste.

Reaction of the political parties :

The majority of political parties, like LJP, BSP, BHIM ARMY, TDP, JDU, etc., have openly opposed the decision of the Supreme Court.  They called for an open protest on the 21st of August and named it BHARAT BANDH.

73.4) Conclusion:

This verdict has been in the Supreme Court since 2020. The decision on subcategorization was made after the proper discussion.  We cannot raise questions on the honorable Supreme Court.  Social media is trending with #samvidhaan_bachao. The people are demanding the resignation of CJI. This decision will definitely increase the number of public interest litigation cases from many states regarding the misuse of this decision.

— Team Yuva Aaveg

(Shashwat Tripathi)

To keep yourself updated!!

Join our channels

Telegram    Whats App