Quota within Quota

((General Studies I – Society Section – Salient features of Indian Society, Diversity of India.

General Studies II – Polity Section – Indian Constitution—Historical Underpinnings, Evolution, Features, Amendments, Significant Provisions and Basic Structure.)

• The Supreme Court’s recent judgment allowing the sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs) represents a significant evolution in India’s affirmative action jurisprudence.
• This landmark decision, delivered by a seven-judge Constitution bench with a 6:1 majority, permits States to classify SCs into sub-groups and extend preferential treatment to the more disadvantaged among them.
• The ruling overrules a 2005 decision that deemed such classifications unconstitutional, thus advancing the depth and reach of social justice.

Key Aspects of the Judgment –

1. Background and Evolution:
2. Formal to Substantive Equality: The concept of reservations has evolved from a focus on formal equality, emphasizing non-discrimination, to substantive equality, aiming to accommodate historical and social disabilities.
3. Historical Context: The judgment traces its origins to a 1975 Punjab government decision to divide its 25% SC reservation into two categories: half for Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikhs, and half for other SCs.
4. Majority Verdict:
5. Heterogeneity within SCs: The Court acknowledged that SCs are not a homogeneous class and that there are varying degrees of backwardness among them.
6. Empirical Evidence: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice BR Gavai provided historical and empirical evidence demonstrating differences in advancement levels within SC communities.
7. Substantive Equality: The judgment emphasizes substantive equality, addressing internal differences within SCs to achieve actual fairness.
8. Principles for Sub-classification:
9. Rational Differentiation: States must use empirical data to justify sub-classification based on backwardness or representation in public services.
10. Constraints on Sub-classification: Sub-classification must not reserve all seats for one sub-group or exclude other groups entirely.
11. Creamy Layer Concept:
12. Exclusion from Benefits: The judgment suggests applying the creamy layer principle, which excludes wealthier members from reservations, to SCs and STs.
13. Legal Enforceability: Since this was not a litigated issue, these suggestions lack legal enforceability but highlight the need to ensure that the truly disadvantaged benefit from affirmative action.
14. Dissenting Opinion:
15. Homogeneity of SCs: Justice Bela Trivedi dissented, arguing that SCs should be treated as a homogeneous group and only Parliament can alter the Presidential List of SCs.
16. Legislative Competence: She contended that states lack the competence to sub-classify SCs, which would disrupt the uniformity and special status accorded to them.

Historical and Legal Journey –

• Indra Sawhney Judgment (1992): The nine-judge bench allowed sub-classification within backward classes, influencing the recent judgment.
• E.V. Chinnaiah vs A.P. (2005): The Supreme Court ruled against sub-classification within SCs, stating that states could not modify the Presidential List under Article 341.
• Punjab and Haryana High Court (2006): Quashed a sub-quota for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, citing the 2005 judgment.
• Referral to Larger Bench (2014): The Supreme Court referred the matter to a five-judge bench, which later referred it to a seven-judge bench due to the constitutional implications.

Criticisms by Activists –

1. Fragmentation of SC Identity: Critics argue that sub-classification fragments the SC identity and undermines the solidarity and unity of these communities.
2. Implementation Challenges: Determining and implementing sub-classification criteria may lead to administrative complexities and potential biases.
3. Political Manipulation: There are concerns that political motives might drive sub-classification, leading to realignment of SCs according to vested interests rather than genuine need.
4. Creamy Layer Exclusion: The introduction of the creamy layer concept within SCs and STs is contentious as it deviates from the traditional understanding of these groups’ historical marginalization.

Benefits as per Experts –

1. Targeted Affirmative Action: Sub-classification ensures that the most disadvantaged sections within SCs receive the intended benefits, promoting substantive equality.
2. Addressing Inequality: The judgment acknowledges and addresses the varying levels of advancement within SCs, preventing the monopolization of benefits by more advanced groups.
3. Historical Justice: By recognizing the heterogeneity within SCs, the decision aligns with the principles of historical and social justice, ensuring that affirmative action policies are more effective.
4. Empirical Basis: The requirement for empirical data to justify sub-classification promotes a more evidence-based and rational approach to reservations.

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow sub-classification within SCs represents a progressive step towards achieving substantive equality by recognizing and addressing the varying levels of backwardness within these communities. While the application of the creamy layer principle remains non-binding, the judgment underscores the need to ensure that the benefits of affirmative action reach the most disadvantaged. Justice Bela Trivedi’s dissent highlights the ongoing debate over the homogeneity of SCs and the legislative competence of states, ensuring that the discourse on social justice continues to evolve.