Background:

• Sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) refers to the division of these broad social groups into smaller sub-groups based on various factors such as social status, historical disadvantages, traditional occupations, and varying degrees of access to education and opportunities.
• The Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh case(August 2024) has allowed state governments to sub-divide the reservation quota meant for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). 
• The Court has also opened the door for identification and exclusion of the “creamy layer” in the SC and ST categories from the benefits of affirmative action.
• In the E V Chinnaiah case (2004), a five-member bench of the Supreme Court had outlawed any policy that sought to subdivide this category for purposes of creating sub-quotas.
• In the 2004 case, the bench unanimously took an ultra-technical view of Article 341 and held that all the Scheduled Castes, across the diverse social geographies within the states, were a homogenous class that could not be subdivided.
• The point of contention was the interpretation of Article 341 of the Constitution that empowers the President to notify the list of castes to be deemed as Scheduled Castes throughout the country. 
• Now, the Supreme Court has interpreted the article 341 and held that the state governments are competent to sub-classify the Scheduled Castes in order to identify groups that merit more beneficial treatment.

Need for Sub Categorisation:

• • Diverse Social and Economic Status within SC and ST Groups: The categories of SCs and STs are not homogeneous; they encompass a wide range of sub-groups with different social statuses and levels of economic disadvantage. 
    • Data from caste surveys indicate stark disparities in educational attainment among different SC sub-groups. 
    • For instance, in Bihar, there is a significant difference in higher education levels between the Dhobi, Dusadh, and Musahar communities, with the Musahar being the most disadvantaged.
  • Historical Inequalities and Unequal Access to Opportunities: Historically, some SC and ST sub-groups have had very limited exposure to modern education and employment opportunities, leading to persistent inequality. 
    • These groups often face additional barriers such as discrimination, lack of resources, and social stigma.
    • In states like Tamil Nadu, the Arunthathiyar community, although constituting a significant percentage of the SC population, has minimal representation among SC government employees, highlighting the uneven access to opportunities.
  • Need for Targeted Affirmative Action: The current system of reservations often benefits the relatively better-off sub-groups within the SC and ST categories, while the most disadvantaged sub-groups continue to lag. 
    • By creating separate quotas for different sub-groups based on their population share and degree of disadvantage, the state can ensure a more equitable distribution of resources and opportunities.

• Aligning with Principles of Distributive Justice: The principle of distributive justice demands that benefits should be allocated in a manner that compensates for historical disadvantages and existing inequalities. 

• The Supreme Court’s judgement recognizes the need for evidence-based policies that are reasonable and rational, moving away from a one-size-fits-all approach to affirmative action.

• Addressing the Issue of “Creamy Layer”: Excluding the relatively privileged members of these groups from reservation benefits ensures that the affirmative action policies are not diluted and that the most disadvantaged members receive the support they need.
  • The judgement suggests that the criteria for identifying the creamy layer within SC and ST categories should be different from those used for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), acknowledging the unique challenges faced by these communities.
• Enhancing the Effectiveness of Social Justice Policies: Sub-categorization is a step towards fine-tuning social justice policies to make them more effective and equitable. 
  • It helps address the internal disparities within SC and ST categories, thereby deepening the impact of affirmative action in an era where such policies face challenges.

Conclusion:

• By ensuring that affirmative action is data-driven and tailored to the specific needs of different sub-groups, the state can better achieve its goals of social justice and equality.
• The need of the hour is careful evidence-based identification of the most disadvantaged communities and provisions to ensure that the sub-division and the creamy layer do not become a route to divert SC/ST quota seats to non-reserved categories.