Hindu Editorial Analysis : 3-August-2024

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the right of states to sub-classify Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) for reservation benefits. This ruling acknowledges that SCs and STs are not a single, uniform group; they have varying levels of social and economic challenges.

Background: Roots of the Case

The case dates back to 1975, when the Punjab government decided to split its 25% SC reservation into two categories:

  • First Category: Reserved for economically and educationally backward communities, specifically the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh.
  • Second Category: Included the remaining SC communities.

In 2004, the Supreme Court struck down a similar law from Andhra Pradesh, ruling that SCs/STs are a “homogenous group” that cannot be divided.

2004 Decision and Its Reversal

The Supreme Court’s 2004 decision declared any differentiation within the SC list unconstitutional. This meant that sub-classifying SCs was not allowed. However, in August 2024, a seven-judge bench reversed this decision, enabling states to create sub-classifications within SC and ST categories.

The New Ruling

The recent judgment allows states to identify and provide fixed sub-quotas for the most backward communities among SCs and STs. Justice B.R. Gavai proposed the ‘Creamy Layer’ concept, which sets an income ceiling for reservation eligibility, ensuring that benefits reach those who genuinely need them.

Why Sub-Classification Matters
  1. Diverse Social Realities: SCs and STs consist of many communities with unique histories and socio-economic situations.
  2. Targeted Benefits: Sub-classification enables more effective targeting of benefits to the most marginalized groups.
  3. Graded Inequalities: The ruling addresses the unequal access to resources and representation among SC communities.

Acknowledging Community Diversity

The court recognized that not all SCs and STs face the same level of disadvantage. Some communities, like the Madigas, claim they have been overlooked in favor of others, like the Malas. The recent decision emphasizes that states can give preferential treatment to the weakest within the SC category.

States Affected by the Ruling

Several states, including Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Odisha, have diverse SC and ST communities:

  • Maharashtra: Home to the politically active Mahar community and the Matang community.
  • Rajasthan: Notable communities include the Meghwals and the Meena tribe.
  • Odisha: Major tribal groups include the Khond and Santal tribes.

Challenges Ahead

The implementation of sub-classification faces several hurdles:

  • Legal Challenges: The Supreme Court had previously ruled that the power to categorize SCs and STs lies only with Parliament.
  • Data Limitations: Outdated socio-economic data hampers accurate sub-classification efforts.
  • Social Stigmas: The historical context of untouchability complicates the understanding of backwardness in SC and ST communities.

Why In News

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the right of states to sub-classify Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) for the purpose of providing reservation benefits. This decision recognizes that these communities are not monolithic; rather, they exhibit varying degrees of social backwardness, reflecting the complex realities and diverse challenges faced by different groups within these categories.

MCQs about The Supreme Court Ruling on Sub-Classifying SCs and STs

  1. What was the main outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling in August 2024?
    A. The SC and ST lists cannot be divided.
    B. States are allowed to sub-classify SCs and STs.
    C. All SCs and STs must receive equal benefits.
    D. The ‘Creamy Layer’ concept is no longer applicable.
    Correct Answer: B. States are allowed to sub-classify SCs and STs.
    Explanation: The ruling permits states to create sub-classifications within SC and ST categories to better address varying degrees of social backwardness.
  2. Which community is specifically mentioned as having claimed they were overlooked in favor of another community regarding reservation benefits?
    A. Balmiki
    B. Mazhabi
    C. Madiga
    D. Meena
    Correct Answer: C. Madiga
    Explanation: The Madiga community has asserted that benefits intended for the SC category have primarily been received by the Mala community, leaving them underrepresented.
  3. What is the purpose of the ‘Creamy Layer’ concept mentioned in the ruling?
    A. To eliminate reservations for all communities.
    B. To set an income ceiling for reservation eligibility.
    C. To classify all SCs and STs as homogeneous.
    D. To provide benefits to all SCs and STs equally.
    Correct Answer: B. To set an income ceiling for reservation eligibility.
    Explanation: The ‘Creamy Layer’ concept aims to ensure that reservation benefits are targeted towards those who genuinely need them, based on their economic status.
  4. Which of the following is NOT a challenge faced in implementing sub-classification of SCs and STs?
    A. Legal challenges regarding authority to classify.
    B. Availability of updated socio-economic data.
    C. Historical context of untouchability.
    D. Increased representation for all SC communities.
    Correct Answer: D. Increased representation for all SC communities.
    Explanation: While increased representation is a goal, the challenge lies in the lack of legal authority, outdated data, and the historical context of discrimination, not an automatic increase in representation.

Boost up your confidence by appearing our Weekly Current Affairs Multiple Choice Questions

Loading