The Supreme Court of India ruled yesterday, August 1 that states can now subclassify Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) reservations to grant more quotas for more castes further marginalised within the SC and ST categories.
This verdict was given by a seven-member bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma, after the bench reserved judgement on the matter on February 8, after three days of hearing.
The majority of the bench also overruled the judgement of the EV Chinnaiah vs The State of Andhra Pradesh case of 2024, which held that the state cannot introduce sub-classifications in the SC/ST categories.
In addition, Justice BR Gavai, interestingly the first Scheduled Caste Supreme Court judge in nine years, added in his judgement that SC/ST reservations are being enjoyed by a minority within the SC/ST communities and that the state must give preferential treatment to the most backward communities in the SC/ST list.
He also mentioned that the states must create a policy to identify a creamy layer within the SC and ST categories to exclude them from the benefits of affirmation action and that only this can achieve “real equality as enshrined under the Constitution.”
Reservations — A bone of contention
Caste-based reservations are possibly the most contested and controversial policy in India, as people from the “unreserved” category, mainly belonging to the forward castes argue that the SC/ST and OBC quotas are unfair towards them, and that “undeserving” candidates are given an undue advantage in admissions and employment.
Many anti-caste activists and people from SC/ST and OBC communities term this backlash from the forward castes as being devoid of an understanding of caste-based discrimination and propaganda. They further claim that the upper castes do not want to see the lowered castes progressing.
Economist Jean Dreze, in an article titled The Revolt of the Upper Castes published in The India Forum, writes, “Of all the ways upper-caste privilege has been challenged in recent decades, perhaps none is more acutely resented by the upper castes than the system of reservation in education and public employment.”
Thus, Dalits, Adivasis, and anti-caste activists alike now see this verdict as an attack on SC/ST reservations. Many took to X to share their disapproval and outrage and question the validity of the ruling.
Even Prakash Ambedkar, Founder and President of the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi and grandson of Dr BR Ambedkar joined in, claiming that the verdict stood in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
What are the possible effects of sub-categorisation in SC/ST reservations in education and employment? Is it the best possible move to ensure “real equality”, as the judgement claims? EdexLive examines.
“Marginalised communities could be benefitted”
Subcategorisation within SC/ST reservations could truly impact the social and economic standing of several marginalised caste groups within the SC and Backward Classes categories, argue some activists from the Bahujan movement.
For instance, Karunakar, founder of the Bahujan Students’ Federation of India (BSFI) says that there are castes wrongly listed under BC or OBC categories, despite facing historic oppression. “These caste groups are not powerful enough to uplift themselves. Such groups need support through reservations,” he says, hoping that they would be added to the SC list.
He also states that even within Scheduled Castes, a few castes are more “visible” than others, such as the Mala caste in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the Mahars in Maharashtra, and the Jatavs in Uttar Pradesh. “People falsely assume that SCs only comprise these castes, but the actual number is much higher. This judgement will facilitate all these castes’ betterment,” Karunakar says.
Similarly, MS Nethrapal, Indian Revenue Services (IRS) officer says that castes within the SC category that have faced more marginalisation must definitely be prioritised.
“The Madiga community in AP and Telangana, for instance, have been arguing that they have been subjected to more discrimination in history. I believe that subcategorisation must be directed towards correcting their oppression,” he adds.
Basis of sub-categorisation & creamy layer called into question
However, while Nethrapal believes that subcategorisation might have validity in some states, he believes that it should be conducted only after proper ethnographic study.
He also claims that in the event of such a study, this verdict could empower states to remove seemingly advanced SC/ST castes from the SC/ST lists. To illustrate this, he points to a report by a committee set up by Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1965, which found several castes and tribes in the SC/ST lists that achieved “economic forwardness” in various states and advocated for their descheduling.
Nethrapal also questions the Supreme Court’s direction for states to establish a creamy layer within the SC/ST category. According to him, this order “came out of nowhere”.
According to him, the concept of a creamy layer applies to reservations for Other Backwards Classes and not SC/ST reservations, as they both have completely different historical contexts.
“OBC reservations were put into place because the Mandal Commission found social and educational backwardness in several castes, as compared to the so-called forward castes. When some of these castes improved their social standing due to economic progress, they were classified under a creamy layer,” he explains.
Many anti-caste scholars and activists have pointed out that such improvement in social standing due to economic progress was impossible for Dalits and Adivasis to gain, as discrimination against them still persists.
“In both the Constituent Assembly debates and the Constitution of India, the basis for SC/ST reservations is historical untouchability, exclusion and discrimination – not economic backwardness,” says Dr Subhajit Naskar, Assistant Professor at Jadavpur University.
He adds that this discrimination and exclusion is still the reality for Dalits and Adivasis across India.
“Former President Ram Nath Kovind and President Droupadi Murmu were allegedly not allowed inside the Puri Jagannath Temple. Last year, a Dalit IAS Officer posted in Jammu & Kashmir complained about facing caste discrimination in the workplace. Despite studying in premier educational institutes and reaching high positions in their careers, Dalits and Adivasis still face discrimination due to their identities,” he explains.
He adds that the classifications of “economic upliftment” and “representation” have been deliberately conflated with each other in the judgement.
Prof Naskar thus claims that this verdict, which he calls a “judicial overreach”, defeats the very purpose of SC/ST reservations.
SC/ST quotas could be diminished, say activists
While the rationale of this verdict is the upliftment of more backward castes in the SC/ST list – and it could be possible – activists opine that the opposite could also happen and that opportunities in education and employment for SC/ST candidates could come down marginally.
“By giving states the power to introduce subcategorisation and a creamy layer within the SC/ST quota, many castes within the category stand at the risk of being excluded from the benefits of affirmative action,” says Dr Naskar.
Echoing this, Nethrapal says, “It is important to note that Dalits and Adivasis faced extreme discrimination, segregation, and exclusion for thousands of years. They were not allowed to enter cities, receive education or participate in economic activities. It was only after India’s independence in 1947 that they could be employed and educated, but the public sector remains their only option.
He adds that those SC/ST candidates who can benefit from reservations are only second, or even first-generation learners. “These candidates, despite being Dalit and Adivasi, would be excluded from the creamy layer,” he adds.
Dr Naskar adds that SC/ST seats in educational institutions and posts in employment would remain vacant, and the excluded castes are at risk of facing caste discrimination during employment, being deliberately declared “not found suitable”.
Echoing this, Nethrapal says that this verdict does not consider the impact of subcategorisation on rosters.
As per the roster system, the positions for reserved groups are allocated by dividing 100 by the percentage of the quota enjoyed by said group. Using this formula, SC candidates are allotted every seventh post for which a vacancy arises (100/7 = 6.66, ie, 7), and ST candidates are allotted every 14th post (100/7.5 = 13.33, ie, 14).
However, upon subcategorisation, these quotas could come down due to division, and it could take longer for SC/ST individuals to get appointments, claims Nethrapal.
Nethrapal adds that moreover, the introduction of a creamy layer, and excluding certain castes in the SC list from reservations could potentially reduce the quota allocation for SCs on the whole.
“It is already happening in NEET. As only 9 per cent of the SC seats are being filled, the remaining 6 per cent is being added to the general category. Disallowing certain castes from availing of the benefits of affirmative action could reduce the overall quotas for SCs and STs,” he says.
Quotas at risk of politicisation
The biggest peril this verdict poses is that the quota system would be used by state governments as a tool for political appeasement.
“Ruling parties in states could announce that a certain caste group could be included in the SC list right before elections, and strengthen their vote banks,” says Dr Naskar.
Adding to this, Nethrapal points to how Maratha reservations in Maharashtra and the Jat reservations in Haryana are prominent issues in determining election outcomes.
“When reservations for the SCs, then called Depressed Classes, were first awarded in the Poona Pact of 1932, it was mentioned that any change in the quotas must be done through mutual negotiation with the stakeholders. Post-independence, it was decided by the Constituent Assembly that quotas for SCs and STs could only be changed by a two-thirds majority in the Parliament,” he adds.
He also states that any change in the composition of Scheduled Castes in the Presidential List must be made only through the Parliament, and not State Legislative Assemblies. “Dr Ambedkar specifically disallowed political interference in SC/ST reservations,” he adds.
Interestingly, Justice Bela Trivedi, the lone dissenting voice on the bench, said in her verdict that state governments do not have the executive or legislative power to sub-classify the castes and tribes mentioned in the Presidential List, as notified under Article 341 of the Constitution.
Karunakar adds that without promising adequate reservations in education, employment, and politics, subclassification would not work.
“While we are happy with the verdict, we do not support it fully as we continue to demand more representation in the educational, economic, and political spheres,” he says.
While the verdict allows the state government to introduce further classifications and even a creamy layer in SC/ST reservations, it left the onus of formulating or implementing them to the state governments. It remains to be seen how the Parliament will receive this verdict, and how it will be interpreted and implemented.
