Navigating Intra-Group Dynamics: Caste Reservation Policies in India

Introduction

In the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, a seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court (SC) of India will rule on a legal issue that will have a significant impact on affirmative action and reservations under the Constitution going forward. Although Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) are sometimes treated as homogeneous groups, research and data show that there are notable differences within these groups, with certain castes experiencing more discrimination than others.

Background and Timeline of the Issue:-

• ISSUE:- Can State governments subclass candidates within the percentages allowed for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes while hiring public servants?

• Differences between SCs and STs Research indicates that there are differences between SCs and STs, indicating that certain groups experience discrimination more than others. This calls for the authority of State governments to identify differences among groups.

• 1975 A Punjab government circular states that Mazhabi and Valmiki Sikhs will receive half of the state's allocated seats for Scheduled Castes (SCs), with the remaining half being available to other SC groups.

• The Scheduled Castes (Rationalization of Reservations) Act was passed by Andhra Pradesh in 2000. It separates SCs into four groups and allows a certain amount to each group according to how backwards they are.

• 2004 Judgement in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh: The Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000 was invalidated by a five-judge bench for violating Article 341 of the Constitution.

• Article 341 of the Constitution: According to this clause, the President of India may announce a list of Special Courts (SCs) for each State, and Parliament alone may amend the list.

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court invalidated this announcement in July 2006, by a 2004 Supreme Court ruling in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh.

• In 2006, the Punjab and Haryana High Court invalidated the 1975 Punjab Circular in light of the ruling in the Chinnaiah case by the Supreme Court.

• The Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act of Punjab was passed in 2006.

• The Punjab government passed the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, even though its 1975 circular was overturned. This law gave Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs priority in the hiring process once more.

• The High Court ruled that this law was unlawful as well.

• 2020: The Supreme Court questions the validity of its previous ruling in the Chinnaiah case while considering an appeal over the ruling about Punjab's 2006 statute.

• Currently: A seven-judge bench has been established for a new trial concerning the matters brought up in the State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh case.

Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2020:

• The matter that is currently pending before the Supreme Court of India is an appeal against a state law that gave the government the authority to subclassify SC/STs to give quotas. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had upheld the state statute.

• A Punjab government circular that said that 50% of the seats set aside for SCs would be given to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs was invalidated by the High Court's ruling.

• In reaching its conclusion, the High Court in this case cited the Chinnaiah ruling.

What is the Sub-Categorisation within Castes?

• The practice of forming subgroups within the current Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) categories for reservation and affirmative action is known as sub-categorisation within castes.

• The goal of subcategorisation is to guarantee a fair distribution of opportunities and benefits among the most marginalized and underprivileged segments of society, while also addressing intra-category disparities.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's seven-judge bench's impending decision and a committee's findings will direct the process of dividing Scheduled Castes into smaller groups. The moment has come for the Supreme Court to carefully consider what it acknowledged in N.M. Thomas: governments must guarantee the realization of the constitutional dream of equality in addition to the authority to make reservations.

Therefore, any power granted to the States to grant special treatment to the castes within SCs and STs that experience the greatest discrimination must be viewed as a means of bringing the concept of equal opportunity to reality.