Sub-Categorization of SCs and STs: A Landmark Decision

Background

In 1975, the government of Punjab issued a notification dividing its existing 25% reservation for SCs into two categories. Half of these seats reserved for the SC category were to be offered to Balmikis (Valmikis) and Mazhabi Sikhs, while the other half was for the remaining groups within the SC category. This notification remained in effect for 31 years until the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in E.V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) set aside a similar law in Andhra Pradesh.

The Supreme Court’s Verdict

Fast forward to 2024, the Supreme Court reviewed the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and delivered a 6:1 majority opinion. The ruling allowed state governments the authority to sub-classify reserved category groups, such as SCs and STs, for reservations. Here are the key points:

1. Background: The SC’s Chinnaiah decision had previously ruled that sub-classification within the SC category was not permitted. However, the recent verdict overturned this, granting states the power to sub-categorize SCs and STs.

2. Implications: This decision widens protection for underrepresented groups, ensuring that the beneficiaries are those who need quotas the most.

3. Creamy Layer Exception: Justice Gavai’s opinion suggests introducing the ‘creamy layer’ exception for SCs (and STs), similar to what is already followed for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The creamy layer concept places an income ceiling on reservation eligibility, ensuring equitable distribution of benefits.
   

Conclusion

The sub-categorization debate continues to shape India’s affirmative action policies. As we navigate this complex issue, it’s essential to strike a balance between social justice and practical implementation. The Supreme Court’s ruling opens new avenues for equitable representation, but the journey toward true inclusivity remains ongoing.