Sub-categorisation in Reservation: Answers to 5 Important Question
- Tanmay Mehta
- Sep 5, 2020
- 4 min read
On 27 August, the Supreme Court, while holding (in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Dalvinder Singh and Ors.) that a judgement of a coordinate bench needs to be revisited, referred the matter to the Chief Justice for placing it before an appropriate larger bench. While doing so, the bench observed that once a State Government has the power to make reservation, it also has the power to make sub-classifications and that such sub-classification will not amount to tinkering with the reservation list. Here are answers to 5 Important questions relating to sub-categorisation in reservation.
What is sub-categorisation in reservation?
Sub-classification or sub-categorisation in the simplest of terms means creating a class within a class. If taken in the context of reservation, sub-classification refers to a process which is based on the premise that not every sub-caste in a particular homogenous group (for example Schedule Castes or Other Backward Classes) has benefitted from reservation. Let us take up the example of Justice (retd.) Rohini Commission for sub-categorisation of OBCs. One of the most significant findings of the commission is that 97% of all jobs and educational seats have gone to just 25% of all sub-castes classified as OBCs. Thus the need of sub-categorisation stems from the inadequacy of the present reservation system to percolate to the lowest levels and benefit the most backward within an already backward group.
What were some other findings of the Justice Rohini Commission?
The commission was initially set up with three terms of references which include examining the extent of inequitable distribution of benefits of reservation among the castes or communities included in the broad category of OBCs, working out the mechanism, criteria, norms and parameters in a scientific approach for sub-categorisation within such OBCs and taking up the exercise of identifying the respective castes or communities or sub-castes or synonyms in the Central List of OBCs and classifying them into their respective sub-categories. Another term of reference was added this year (on the request of the commission) which related to studying various entries in the Central List of OBCs and recommend correction of any repetitions, ambiguities, inconsistencies and errors of spelling or transcription. Major findings of the commission are:
24.95% of all the jobs and seats that were allotted to OBCs have gone to just 10 OBC communities;
983 OBC communities, 37% of the total, have zero representation in jobs and educational institutions;
994 OBC sub-castes have a total representation of only 2.68% in recruitment and admissions
What was the judgement referred to by the bench in Dalvinder Singh case?
The judgement referred to by the bench in Dalvinder Singh is EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh in which the Supreme Court struck down a law made the Andhra Pradesh state legislative assembly which dealt with a conflict between sub-castes in Andhra Pradesh. The law had bifurcated the Presidential list into four groups and had apportioned the 15% quota among them on the basis of degree of backwardness and proportional population of each sub-caste. On the said issue the SC had held that the said sub-classification was unconstitutional as the SCs were a class by themselves, classified sufficiently (as such for the purpose of Article 14) under Article 341, and that the sub-classification could only be made by the Parliament under Article 341(2).
What was the issue in Dalvinder Singh case?
In Dalvinder Singh case, constitutionality of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act 2006 was challenged which provides that 50% of the total seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes are to be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs. The aforementioned section was held unconstitutional by Punjab and Haryana High Court. In appeal, the SC held:
the state could provide preference to a class within the Scheduled Class/ Scheduled Tribe;
allotment of specific percentage out of the reserved seats would not violate Article 341, 342 and 342A; and
a federal structure put both the State Legislature and the Parliament under a “constitutional directive” for the upliftment of the SCs/ STs and backward classes.
Why does it matter?
Sub-categorisation has been a contentious issue for a long time and no government has been willing to bite the bullet which is evident from the repeated extension of the Justice Rohini Commission (the present extension till January 2021, in my opinion, has been done keeping in mind the upcoming Bihar elections). However as is evident from the findings of the aforementioned commission, the purpose for which framers of our constitution specifically added provisions relating to affirmative action in the Constitution (upliftment of the most backward) has not been achieved even after over 70 years. This warrants a change in policy so that reservation trickles down to the most backward communities. Aruna Tiwari, in this piece, very well summed up the entire issue by saying until notions of caste and impurity persist, we can neither treat distinct groups as one, nor discount prejudice against group identity and exclude individuals.
Further Readings and References:
Comments