Supreme Court Decision on Sub-Categorization in Reservation: What Will be Its Effect?

A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court has delivered a significant ruling regarding reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). On Thursday, six of the seven judges agreed that sub-categories within SCs and STs can also be eligible for reservations. However, Justice Bela Trivedi dissented from this opinion.

This ruling empowers states to implement sub-classification within the reservations for SCs and STs based on empirical data. For instance, if a state has a 15% reservation quota for SCs, it can now allocate specific reservations within that 15% to sub-categories of SCs.

The court emphasized that not all SCs and STs constitute a homogeneous class. Some groups within these categories might be more backward than others, warranting separate reservations for their upliftment. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justice Manoj Mishra, noted that SCs are not a uniform class. They illustrated that certain sub-castes, such as those involved in manual scavenging, are more disadvantaged compared to others, such as weavers, even though both face untouchability.

The court specified that sub-classification decisions must be based on data, not political motives. Governments will need to demonstrate that a caste is underrepresented in government jobs due to its backwardness. These decisions will be subject to judicial review.

Many sub-castes have not received adequate benefits

From a sociological perspective, this ruling addresses disparities within the broader SC and ST categories. In states like Madhya Pradesh, where SCs have 16% reservation, the benefits have predominantly gone to specific sub-castes like Jatav, Mahar, Mehra, and Ahirwar. Meanwhile, many other sub-castes, such as Bedia, Bansor, Beldar, and others, have not received adequate benefits.

Similarly, in the tribal category, which has 20% reservation in Madhya Pradesh, certain groups like Gond, Kaul, Bhil, Bhilala, Barela, and Damor dominate government jobs. Conversely, sub-castes such as Sahariya, Oraon, Munda, Nagesia, and others have lagged behind. This ground reality indicates significant disparities within the category, justifying the need for sub-classification.

Quota benefits have often remained within certain groups

The principle behind sub-categorization is that some groups within a larger category have faced more severe historical oppression and discrimination. For example, comparing the children of high-class SC lawyers to those of village manual scavengers is not justified. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar had envisioned that reservation would no longer be necessary after a decade. He expected that beneficiaries would not seek reservations for their next generation, thus passing the benefits to those who had never received them. However, the benefits have often remained within certain groups, perpetuating intra-category inequality.

What Will Be Political Ramifications

This decision is expected to have profound political effects. It could benefit sub-categories that have not received reservation advantages for the last 70 years, making the ruling historic. However, some political analysts argue that this could also impact the Dalit vote by dividing SC-ST votes, potentially causing political fragmentation within these communities.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has supported sub-classification in court, possibly anticipating political gains. State-level political parties might also use sub-classification to their advantage.

Prakash Ambedkar, president of Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi, opposed the decision, arguing that it violates the fundamental right to equality and questioning the criteria for determining backwardness.

Overall, the Supreme Court's ruling on sub-categorization within SC and ST reservations is a landmark decision with far-reaching social and political implications.