Supreme Court decide about the sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes

Source: The post Supreme Court decide about the sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes has been created, based on the article “Internal inequalities must stay at the heart of sub-quota conversation” published in “Indian Express” on 14th October is 2024

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2-Social Justice

Context: The article discusses the Supreme Court’s ruling on the constitutional validity of sub-categorizing Scheduled Castes. It highlights the legal reasoning behind the decision, emphasizing the need for fair representation and addressing internal inequalities among the Scheduled Castes.

For detailed information on SC verdict allowing for Sub-Classification of SCs and STs read this article here

What did the Supreme Court decide about the sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes?

1. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of sub-categorizing Scheduled Castes in its October 4 decision, rejecting review petitions against its August 1 judgment.
2. The 6-1 decision by a seven-judge bench overturned the 2004 E V Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ruling, which declared sub-categorization unconstitutional.

What is the main legal argument in the judgment?

1. Justices D Y Chandrachud and Manoj Mishra argued that Article 341, which lists the Scheduled Castes, doesn’t create new castes but selects existing ones for inclusion.
2. This “deemed fiction” allows Parliament, not the executive, to alter the list.
3. However, the government can address internal inequalities within the listed castes without changing the composition of the Schedule.

What are the four key principles of the judgment?

1. Sub-categorization promotes substantive equality:
   Like reservation itself, sub-categorization ensures fair representation among the Scheduled Castes (SCs) by addressing internal inequalities.
2. Efficiency in administration fosters inclusion:
   Administrative efficiency must promote equality, countering past restrictions on reservations.
3. Sub-categorization must not exclude advanced SCs:
   It cannot result in excluding socially and educationally advanced castes within the SCs, unlike the 2022 EWS verdict.
4. Empirical evidence is necessary:
   Sub-categorization schemes must present data on material inequalities, such as unequal representation in government services, and acknowledge ongoing discrimination within SCs since their 1936 classification.

What challenges remain for sub-categorization?

1. Development of Criteria: Transparent, evidence-based criteria for sub-categorization must be developed. These criteria need to be specific to the context of each Scheduled Caste group to ensure fairness.
2. Evidence Requirement: Sub-categorization schemes must provide empirical evidence of material inequalities within the Scheduled Castes.

What is the broader significance of this judgment?

1. The judgment highlights the need for justice within the Scheduled Castes. As B.R. Ambedkar noted, some communities are more vulnerable within larger minority groups.
2. Sub-categorization ensures fair distribution of resources and rights, promoting unity based on justice.

Question for practice:

Evaluate how the Supreme Court’s decision on sub-categorizing Scheduled Castes aims to promote substantive equality within the community.