In the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davindra Singh & Ors[1]. Supreme Court (SC) said that Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs) can be sub-categorized. It is a historic judgement, in the sense, that SC recognized 'the need of hour' to uplift the most downtrodden among SC/STs group. SC said that State can sub-classify SC/STs groups, who are socially, educationally, economically and politically backward,so that objective of substantive justice can be achieved.

There are divergent opinion regarding need for sub- categorizaton among SC/STs community. Social activist like Manda Krishna has been advocating for sub- categorization among SCs caste since 1990s in Andhra Pradesh. Even the case,mentioned above, was regarding categorization of SCs and giving preferential treatment to Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities- as Punjab government regard them as most socially and educationally backward.

While, at the same time, various Dalit activist, political commentator and political party – especially those party who advocates for upliftment of Dalit expressed their skepticism regarding sub-categorization of SC/STs.As the adage goes, each things has its own pros and cons, the issue of sub- categorization also conform with said adage.

Unequal Should Be Treated Unequally:
Constitution makers were aware about historical discrimination faced by SCs/STs and were consensus across political spectrum that SCs/ STs are 'not equal' as respect to general population. To correct these discrimination and make these communities 'equal', constitution maker adopted the 'doctrine of positive discriminaton'.

Provision like Article 15(4) and 16(4) added in constitution to ensure that unequal to be treated unequally and as a result the commuities could stand on same footing as of general population. Article 341 and Article 342 provide that President and Parliament can specify castes, race or tribe as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe, respectively. Nobel intention of constitution makers have not been able to achieve even after seventy-five years of independence as there is 'unequal' among 'unequals'. There is inequality among people of constitutionally mandated 'unequal'.

There is no exaggeration in that fact that even in SCs/STs community, there is discernable differences in attainment of education and subsequent social and economic attainment. This led to division among SCs/STs community and certain castes were able to avail the reservation policy to their best interest. We may can call these 'uplifted' SC/ST caste as 'dominant caste' (among the SC/ST community) and others as 'backward'.

These dominant caste are able to use the resrvation policy at fullest and is able to turn the benefit of reservation into 'virtuous cycle'. This cycle help these dominant caste to educate their next-generation and employ them at gainful reserved jobs.As a consequence, backward SC/STs community find difficult to compete in even reserved seat.These backward castes are not in position to compete with forward caste as their education attainment is not par with other.

This gruelling problem is needed to be fixed. And there is no policy is better than reservation in Indian context. As constitution maker envisaged the policy of reservation to uplift the SC/STs communities, it is prudent to reserve a pie of seats to most backward in these communities.

By practising the adage, unequal should be trated unequally, policy makers of India can achieve substantive equality and can proliferate the reservation benefits to the downtrodden SC/STs caste by sub-categorizing them and giving them a special pie in reservation.

In E.V.Chinnaih v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005)[2], Supreme Court held that SCs/STs form a "homogenous" class for the purpose of Article 15(4) and 16(4) and therefore no further sub-classification within these category could be permitted. But, in its recent verdict, SC reversed its earlier position and declared that SCs/STs are "heterogenous" composition of population. People within SC/STs communitea are not equal in each and every aspects.

Certain castes within SC/STs group became educationally, socially and economically powerful and started to corner a large section of reserved seat and left little to few seats for backward caste. There exists 'intra-dalit disparity' and positive steps need to be taken so that there is no perpetuation of inequality. As Supreme Court remarked, SC/STs are heterogenous group, then it is prudent and conceivable that efforts must be made to make these communities at equal footing.

If sub- classification does not happened, it will result into perpetuation of inequality among the caste indentified under Article 341 and 342. By classifying these community, a pie will be reserved for them and makes it easy for them to enter in an education institution and government jobs. Thus by treating unqual unequally, there is possibility that all of them become equal.

Other Side Of The Coin

The verdict of sub-categorization is not well received by all corner. Some Dalit party vehemently criticized the verdict and label it as a ploy to snatch the benefits of reservation from the hands of SC/ST community. There is various lacuna and negative ramification in sub-categorizing the caste.

Supreme does not specify the method of sub-classification of SC/ST caste. Justice Gavai suggested the policy of "creamy layer" in classification of SC/ST communities. But sweeping the whole SC/ST community under the carpet of creamy layer would mean large section of these community will be rendered un-reserved.

But, there is no data, at present, which suggest that people who will be in creamy layer category attained the social upliftment to the level of general population. For sub-classification of SC/ST caste,need of hour is detailed and comprehensive data, which clearly suggests the backwardness among these communities.

As of now, there is dearth of these kind of data. Even the decennial census have not been conducted and pending since 2021. So, it would be disastrous to sub-classify these communities without any comprensible data backing their 'backwardness' and 'forwardness'.

Sub-classification entails division of SC/ST communities into 'forward' and 'backward' caste. There may be situation when caste classified as 'forward' may contain people who has not attained the level of social and educational upliftment, so as classify them as forward.

So sweeping whole caste into forward bloc does not necessarily means that all people in the said bloc became forward. So, policy makers should keep in their mind these consideration while framing the policy of sub-categorization. Generalization of Dalits group as 'forward' and 'backward' may fail to achieve the objective of substantive equality.

Sub-categorization may led to 'caste antagonism'. There is possibility in increase of caste consciousness among different caste of SC/ST community, which is totally at divergent path- a path which our constitution makers tried to avoid. There is another probability that determination of backward caste may be rinsed in political color. All this hinder to achieve real objective of sub-classification.

Equality As A Governing Principle

Sub-categorization should be done to proliferate and deepen the benefits of reservation. A caveat in that direction is that an unimpeachable evidence should be collected to determine the backwardness of SC/ST community. Then a reservation pie should be extended to these backward caste.

Policy maker should ensure that sub-categorization should be based on data rather than political convenience. Government should invest in targeted policy to provide education, health and other social securities to these backward community.

Dr. B.R.Ambedkar once remarked, 'Equality may be a fiction but nonetheless one must accept it as a governing principle'[3]. This quote encapsulate the reason behind sub-categorization to achieve the objective of substantive equality. Equality has been governing principle of independent India and it should be in the future.

In the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davindra Singh & Ors[1]., Supreme Court(SC) said that Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs) can be sub-categorized. It is a historic judgement, in the sense, that SC recognized 'the need of hour' to uplift the most downtroden among SC/STs group. SC said that State can sub-classify SC/STs groups, who are socially, educationally, economically and politically backward,so that objective of substantive justice can be achieved.

There are divergent opinion regarding need for sub- categorizaton among SC/STs community. Social activist like Manda Krishna has been advocating for sub- categorization among SCs caste since 1990s in Andhra Pradesh. Even the case,mentioned above, was regarding categorization of SCs and giving preferential treatment to Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities- as Punjab government regard them as most socially and educationally backward.

While, at the same time, various Dalit activist, political commentator and political party – especially those party who advocates for upliftment of Dalit expressed their skepticism regarding sub-categorization of SC/STs.As the adage goes, each things has its own pros and cons, the issue of sub- categorization also conform with said adage.

Unequal Should Be Treated Unequally

Constitution makers were aware about historical discrimination faced by SCs/STs and were consensus across political spectrum that SCs/ STs are 'not equal' as respect to general population. To correct these discrimination and make these communities 'equal', constitution maker adopted the 'doctrine of positive discriminaton'.

Provision like Article 15(4) and 16(4) added in constitution to ensure that unequal to be treated unequally and as a result the commuities could stand on same footing as of general population. Article 341 and Article 342 provide that President and Parliament can specify castes, race or tribe as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe, respectively. Nobel intention of constitution makers have not been able to achieve even after seventy-five years of independence as there is 'unequal' among 'unequals'. There is inequality among people of constitutionally mandated 'unequal'.

There is no exaggeration in that fact that even in SCs/STs community, there is discernable differences in attainment of education and subsequent social and economic attainment. This led to division among SCs/STs community and certain castes were able to avail the reservation policy to their best interest. We may can call these 'uplifted' SC/ST caste as 'dominant caste' (among the SC/ST community) and others as 'backward'. These dominant caste are able to use the resrvation policy at fullest and is able to turn the benefit of reservation into 'virtuous cycle'.

This cycle help these dominant caste to educate their next-generation and employ them at gainful reserved jobs. As a consequence, backward SC/STs community find difficult to compete in even reserved seat. These backward castes are not in position to compete with forward caste as their education attainment is not par with other. This gruelling problem is needed to be fixed. And there is no policy is better than reservation in Indian context. As constitution maker envisaged the policy of reservation to uplift the SC/STs communities, it is prudent to reserve a pie of seats to most backward in these communities.

By practising the adage, unequal should be trated unequally, policy makers of India can achieve substantive equality and can proliferate the reservation benefits to the downtrodden SC/STs caste by sub-categorizing them and giving them a special pie in reservation.

In E.V.Chinnaih v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005)[2], Supreme Court held that SCs/STs form a "homogenous" class for the purpose of Article 15(4) and 16(4) and therefore no further sub-classification within these category could be permitted. But, in its recent verdict, SC reversed its earlier position and declared that SCs/STs are "heterogenous" composition of population. People within SC/STs communitea are not equal in each and every aspects.

Certain castes within SC/STs group became educationally, socially and economically powerful and started to corner a large section of reserved seat and left little to few seats for backward caste. There exists 'intra-dalit disparity' and positive steps need to be taken so that there is no perpetuation of inequality. As Supreme Court remarked, SC/STs are heterogenous group, then it is prudent and conceivable that efforts must be made to make these communities at equal footing.

If sub- classification does not happened, it will result into perpetuation of inequality among the caste indentified under Article 341 and 342. By classifying these community, a pie will be reserved for them and makes it easy for them to enter in an education institution and government jobs. Thus by treating unqual unequally, there is possibility that all of them become equal.

Other Side Of The Coin

The verdict of sub-categorization is not well received by all corner. Some Dalit party vehemently criticized the verdict and label it as a ploy to snatch the benefits of reservation from the hands of SC/ST community. There is various lacuna and negative ramification in sub-categorizing the caste.

Supreme does not specify the method of sub-classification of SC/ST caste. Justice Gavai suggested the policy of "creamy layer" in classification of SC/ST communities. But sweeping the whole SC/ST community under the carpet of creamy layer would mean large section of these community will be rendered un-reserved.But, there is no data, at present, which suggest that people who will be in creamy layer category attained the social upliftment to the level of general population.

For sub-classification of SC/ST caste,need of hour is detailed and comprehensive data, which clearly suggests the backwardness among these communities. As of now, there is dearth of these kind of data. Even the decennial census have not been conducted and pending since 2021. So, it would be disastrous to sub-classify these communities without any comprensible data backing their 'backwardness' and 'forwardness'.

Sub-classification entails division of SC/ST communities into 'forward' and 'backward' caste. There may be situation when caste classified as 'forward' may contain people who has not attained the level of social and educational upliftment, so as classify them as forward.

So sweeping whole caste into forward bloc does not necessarily means that all people in the said bloc became forward. So, policy makers should keep in their mind these consideration while framing the policy of sub-categorization. Generalization of Dalits group as 'forward' and 'backward' may fail to achieve the objective of substantive equality.

Sub-categorization may led to 'caste antagonism'.There is possibility in increase of caste consciousness among different caste of SC/ST community, which is totally at divergent path- a path which our constitution makers tried to avoid. There is another probability that determination of backward caste may be rinsed in political color. All this hinder to achieve real objective of sub-classification.

Equality As A Governing Principle

Sub-categorization should be done to proliferate and deepen the benefits of reservation. A caveat in that direction is that an unimpeachable evidence should be collected to determine the backwardness of SC/ST community. Then a reservation pie should be extended to these backward caste.

Policy maker should ensure that sub-categorization should be based on data rather than political convenience. Government should invest in targeted policy to provide education, health and other social securities to these backward community. Dr. B.R.Ambedkar once remarked, 'Equality may be a fiction but nonetheless one must accept it as a governing principle'[3]. This quote encapsulate the reason behind sub-categorization to achieve the objective of substantive equality. Equality has been governing principle of independent India and it should be in the future.

End Notes:

1. 2024 INSC 562
2. (2005) 1 SCC 394
3. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste, Fingerprint Publishing