The August 1 verdict of the Supreme Court permitting Scheduled Castes to be sub-classified to allow “more backward” sections of this group to access a greater share of reservations in educational institutions and government jobs has far-reaching consequences for the future of Dalits and the socio-political fabric of the country. It could deepen social divisions, weaken the Dalit movement and alter the landscape of caste-based politics in India.
Sub-classification could be seen as a step towards eventually diluting or dismantling caste-based reservations, a goal long espoused by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Bharatiya Janata Party. Although this move comes from the Supreme Court , it serves the Sangh’s agenda of doing away with impurities like the Scheduled Castes category that tarnish their idea of a pristine Hindu identity – an task integral to achieving the Hindu Rashtra.
Over the years, various state governments have attempted to introduce sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes but their efforts have failed to meet the test of constitutionality. This month’s verdict puts the Supreme Court’s stamp of approval on the move.
However, even though six of the seven judges concurred with the decision, the verdict – which will have a multi-facted impact on our futures – may still be flawed.
The demand for the sub-categorisation of the Scheduled Castes for reservations first emerged in the 1990s from the Madiga community in undivided Andhra Pradesh. Members of the Scheduled Castes were treated as a homogenous group when accessing reservations but Madigas pushed for sub-classification to allow them to avail of quotas proportionate to their share in the population.
They formed the Madiga Reservation Porata Samiti , strongly emphasising their Madiga identity. Many members adopted “Madiga” as their surname.
The movement, known as Madiga Dandora, was led by Manda Krishna Yellaiah (now known as Manda Krishna Madiga), who had transitioned from the radical politics of the People’s War Group to the Dalit movement in the wake of the Karamchedu and Tsunduru massacres to take up the cause of his own caste
Although he faced several electoral defeats, he effectively mobilised support for sub-categorisation in exchange for the Madiga vote bank, which comprises 60% percent of the Scheduled Caste votes in the Telangana region.
In response to this rising demand, Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu set up the Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission in 1996 to explore the issue. The commission recommended dividing the Scheduled Castes into four groups, with quotas for each based on their share in the population.
Following these recommendations, Andhra Pradesh government issued two Government Orders in 1997, sub-categorising a Scheduled Caste reservations into four groups: A, B, C, and D. The Madiga community was placed in Group A, with a designated percentage of the overall Scheduled Caste reservation.
However, this implementation faced legal challenges, with opponents arguing that it violated the principle of equality among the Scheduled Castes. In 2004, the Supreme Court struck down the Government Orders, ruling that the state government lacked the authority to sub-categorise the Scheduled Castes without first amending the Constitution.
It also confirmed that the Scheduled Castes constitute an internally homogeneous class by virtue of being included in the list of historically marginalised communities that the President draws up under powers conferred to her under the Constitution. As a consequence, groups within the Scheduled Castes cannot be treated differently, as it would be unconstitutional and violate the right to equality.
Despite this setback, the demand for sub-categorisation spread to neighbouring Karnataka, where Madigas clashed with Holeyas. The demand was also voiced in Tamil Nadu, where the Chakliars and Arunthathiyars pushed back against the dominant Paraiyar and Pallar communities within the Scheduled Castes.
While the Madigas were the first group to voice the demand for sub-categorisation, attempts by state governments to implement sub-classification predate this movement. For instance, in 1975, the Punjab government, through the Justice RN Prasad Committee, reserved benefits for the Balmiki and Mazhbi Sikh communities, acknowledging their severe economic and educational disadvantages.
Similarly, in 1990, the Justice Gurnam Singh Commission in Haryana divided the Scheduled Caste list into Block A and Block B. It assigned 36 castes to Block A and placed the Chamar caste, which had reaped the most benefits, in Block B.
Other efforts included the 2003 Lahuji Salve Commission in Maharashtra, which recommended sub-classifying the Mang caste, and the 2005 Justice AJ Sadashiva Commission in Karnataka, which proposed dividing 101 castes into four categories, each receiving 15% of the reservation.
In 2007, the Mahadalit Commission in Bihar identified 18 extremely marginalised castes, including the Musahar, Bhuiyan, Dom, and Rajwar, for special consideration. In Tamil Nadu, the 2008 Justice MS Janarthanam Committee recommended differential reservations for the Arunthathiyar community, emphasising the need for targeted policies to address specific vulnerabilities within the Scheduled Castes.
However, all these initiatives failed the test of constitutionality.
Until 2014, political parties offered cautious support to the demands for sub-categorisation, mindful of the potential electoral risks of alientating the populous Scheduled Caste community. However, upon coming to power, the BJP under Narendra Modi discarded such caution, making religious polarisation a central strategy for electoral gain. The party successfully consolidated Hindu support through anti-Muslim campaigns, with the Other Backward Classes becoming active constituents of the Hindu bloc.
Dalits, however, presented a more complex challenge due to their allegiance to the historical anti-Hinduva stand of BR Ambedkar. The most populous constituent of the Scheduled Castes identfied with Ambedkar because he belonged to one such group in Maharashtra. But other communities did not.
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh devised a two-pronged strategy to woo Dalits. First, they launched the Samajik Samarasata Manch (Social Harmony Platform) to appeal to Dalits by claiming to display their allegiance to Ambedkar, producing and distributing a vast amount of literature on a saffronised version of Ambedkar. This effort helped reshape the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s image among some sections of Dalits, transforming it from an anti-Dalit Brahminic force to a pro-Ambedkar nationalist organisation. This shift was reflected in the steady increase of Dalit votes for the BJP.
But not all Dalits owe allegiance of Ambedkar’s philosophy. As a consequence, the Sangh adopted a second, more cynical strategy to target non-Ambedkarite Dalit castes. While educated sections of many of these castes began to accept Ambedkar as their emancipator, the BJP sought to counter this by offering them leadership roles in newly created caste-based outfits. They unearthed and promoted icons of these minor castes to strengthen their subcaste identities.
These neglected minor castes, often overlooked by the more populous Ambedkarite Dalits, became indebted to the Brahminic leaders who engaged with them.
This process led to the minor castes being enfolded into the embrace of the BJP and developing a resentment towards the Ambedkrite Dalit castes, which they viewed as usurpers of their share of reservations. By 2014, the BJP had made significant inroads among Dalits, winning more reserved Scheduled Caste seats than all other parties combined.
Recognising an opportunity, the BJP seized upon the issue of sub-categorisation to consolidate the loyalty of minor Scheduled Caste groups.
The BJP included sub-categorisation in its 2014 and 2019 election manifestos. The 2014 manifesto promised to ensure that the benefits of reservation would be adequately shared among all sub-categories within the Scheduled Castes, though it did not provide specific details on how this would be implemented.
Its 2019 manifesto reiterated this commitment, promising to examine the sub-categorisation of Scheduled Castes to ensure that weaker sections within the category received the intended benefits. This position aligned with the demands of communities such as the Madigas, who have long advocated for a more equitable distribution of reservation quotas.
In line with these commitments, the BJP-led Central government in 2017 established the Justice G Rohini Commission to examine the sub-categorisation of Other Backward Classes. It later extended its mandate to include the sub-categorisation of Scheduled Castes. The commission was tasked with exploring how to better distribute reservation benefits among different sub-castes.
The government engaged with various stakeholders, including representatives of the Madiga community and other marginalised sub-castes within the Scheduled Caste category, to understand their concerns and demands.
Notwithstanding all this preparatory work, the BJP could not muster up courage to move forward because of its uncertain electoral consequences. On January 19, 2024, during the Telangana election campaign, Prime Minister Narendra Modi again promised to examine Scheduled Caste sub-categorisation. In response, the Madiga Reservation Porata Samiti declared its full support for the BJP in the approaching Assembly elections.
Subsequently, the Union government formed a five-member committee of secretaries to evaluate and develop a method for the equitable distribution of benefits, schemes, and initiatives to the most backward communities among the over 1,200 Scheduled Castes across the country.
The Supreme Court judgment that allowed Scheduled Castes to be sub-categorised was delivered by a seven member-constitutional bench. A 6-1 majority overturned the 2004 verdict in EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh ruling against sub-classifying Schedule Castes.
The main judgment was authored by the chief justice of India for himself and Justice Manoj Mishra. Four other judges in their independent judgements concurred with this.
The chief justice reasoned that Article 14 of the Constitution provides for the sub-classification of a class that is not “similarly situated for the purpose of the law”. This interpretation is a bland reading of the Constitution. Article 14 speaks of classification based on significant and substantial differences that genuinely relate to the objective being pursued. This classification has already been made in terms of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and others . Overly specific or artificial classifications can create inequalities, undermining the principle of equality and potentially leading to discriminatory legislation.
Article 14 warns against “mini-classifications” based on minor distinctions, as they conflict with the idea of equality. Only classifications that clearly promote relevant and legitimate goals are constitutionally valid. Anything beyond that risks invalidating the principle of equality.
The chief justice also held that the Scheduled Caste categories were not a homogeneous group, as each caste faced varying degrees of backwardness. However, the question is: homogeneous in what sense? The Scheduled Castes were formed on the sole criterion of untouchability, and no one can doubt their homogeneity on that count even today.
While it is true that they suffer varying degrees of backwardness, this is irrelevant to the issue. Backwardness is not a criterion as far as the Scheduled Castes are concerned. The basis for their quota is their exclusion and the social prejudice they face. The objective of reservations is to integrate them into the mainstream by securing their representation in education and public employment in proportion to their population.
The chief justice’s judgment also dealt with Article 341 of the Constitution, which allows the President to declare certain castes and classes as Scheduled Castes in a state or a Union territory.
It says: “The President may, after consultation with the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State.”
The chief justice said that the word “deemed” used in the Article does not mean that the Scheduled Castes are at par with each other. He argued that the purpose of Article 341 was to identify Scheduled Castes and distinguish them from other castes not included in the List, rather than indicating a homogeneous class that could not be further classified.
This interpretation is an untenable stretch. Article 341 merely empowers the President to specify the castes in the Presidential List and the Parliament to include or exclude any caste or tribe from the specified list. Beyond this, no further legislative or executive power is vested in the Union of India or Parliament to decide the extent to which castes included in the Scheduled Castes List should benefit from reservations.
Permitting states to sub-categorise Scheduled Castes amounts to an unconstitutional tampering with the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes.
While the chief justice permitted the sub-categorisation of Scheduled Castes, he cautioned that it must not be based on mere whim or political gain. Instead, sub-classifications must be grounded in quantifiable and demonstrable data. He also clarified that states’ decisions would be subject to judicial review.
However, this seemingly reasonable counsel is unlikely to work. Politicians can produce any kind of data and all sorts of reports, even from the judicial persons, which are supposed to maintain their moral integrity. What kind of judicial review can the courts conduct on the veracity of such data?
Justice BR Gavai, while concurring with the chief justice on the permissibility of sub-categorisation, added that the creamy layer rule established in the Indra Sawhney vs Union of India ruling of 1992 to exclude the economically advantaged groups within the Other Backward Classes should also extend to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe groups.
Both the extension of the creamy layer principle and its application to the Scheduled Tribes were clearly extraneous to the issue before the court.
In fact, in the Indra Sawhney case, the court had categorically stated that it was not concerned with the question regarding members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. If the seven-member bench wanted to overrule this precedent, it would have been a different matter. While the concept of the creamy layer may sound good in principle, it is problematic in practice because there is no reliable way of measuring and monitoring incomes in India.
The allegations of fraud in the case of dismissed Indian Administrative Services trainee Pooja Khedkar are a case in point, illustrating how all kinds of certificates can be obtained by moneyed people in India.
The claim that the benefits of reservations have been unevenly distributed across castes is blind to the fact that the first beneficiaries of reservations have a competitive edge over others.
Historically speaking, the most populous groups within the Scheduled Castes, unable to be contained within their traditional vocations in villages, migrated to cities during the colonial period. Even in villages, they adopted vocations that were not traditionally theirs. This struggle for survival made them more enterprising than those who had caste vocations.
It is no surprise that leaders of anti-caste movements in various regions emerged from these castes and encouraged their followers to pursue education.
These castes naturally became the first to benefit from reservations, acquiring a competitive edge over others, including their own castemen. While it was right to constitute a quasi-class of Scheduled Castes based on untouchability, policymakers should have realised that reservations benefited not the caste as a whole but the immediate family of the beneficiary. This should have led to additional mechanisms to prevent the benefits of reservation from being increasingly grabbed by a few families.
The learned judges, at the very least, should have realised that no amount of sub-classification will solve this issue.
There should be no doubt that the BJP, without overtly risking the ire of Dalit voters, has been systematically working towards ending caste-based reservations – a vision long held by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
The party has already implemented a 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections, using criteria that are grossly discriminatory to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This move is blatantly unconstitutional, as the Constitution does not provide for reservations based on economic backwardness. Unfortunately, it has been validated by the Supreme Court.
The BJP government has also introduced mechanisms to allow lateral entry for private-sector specialists into government positions at levels ranging from deputy secretary to joint secretary, violating many constitutional provisions. But this remains unchallenged. There is no question of the government attempting to look for such specialists from the 85% of population belonging to the lower castes and minorities since it does not beleive that there cannot be merit outside the Brahminic castes.
During the last elections, Home Minister Amit Shah had declared that the BJP would implement sub-categorisation if it formed the government. Ordinarily, this would have required Constitutional amendments. But the BJP does not have the requisite numbers in Parliament to try that option. In such a situation, the Supreme Court’s verdict in an 18-year-old appeal serendipitously came to its rescue without the party needing to take any political risks.
It has already scored some brownie points with Dalits by announcing its rejection of the creamy layer suggestion of Justice Gavai, which as such was not part of the verdict.
The verdict will have a multifaceted impact.
The sub-classification of Scheduled Castess may lead to the fragmentation of the Dalit identity, which has traditionally been a significant political force in India. This fragmentation could weaken the unified Dalit vote bank that various political parties have sought to mobilise. As different sub-castes vie for their share of reservations, the solidarity among Dalits could erode, leading to more localised and caste-specific political mobilisations.
The focus on sub-caste identities may intensify intra-community tensions, as sub-castes may feel pitted against each other in a zero-sum game over reservations and resources. This could lead to deepening divisions and reduce the overall bargaining power of Dalits as a unified group.
Political parties, particularly those like the BJP that have supported sub-categorisation, may use this issue to consolidate support among specific sub-castes within the Scheduled Caste community. This could lead to a realignment of caste-based politics, with parties tailoring their outreach and promises to different sub-castes rather than treating Dalits as a monolithic group.
While some sub-castes may gain greater representation and access to resources, others may feel marginalised or left behind. The uneven distribution of benefits could lead to disillusionment among certain sections of the Scheduled Castes, potentially leading to the rise of new political movements or leaders from these communities.
Sub-classification could be seen as a step towards the eventual dilution or dismantling of caste-based reservations, a goal long espoused by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and sections of the BJP. By creating divisions within the Scheduled Castes, the broader rationale for caste-based reservations might be undermined, paving the way for more economically-based reservations like the Economically Weaker Sections quota.
If caste-based reservations are weakened, the most marginalised among the Scheduled Castes may struggle to compete for opportunities in education and employment. While sub-categorisation might temporarily address some issues of unequal access within the Scheduled Castes, it could also lead to a reduction in the overall effectiveness of reservations as a tool for social justice.
The sub-classification could exacerbate existing tensions between different sub-castes within the Scheduled Caste community. This might lead to increased caste-based conflicts, not only within the Scheduled Caste but also between Scheduled Caste groups and Other Backward Classes or upper-caste groups. Politically, this could lead to more fragmented and volatile electoral outcomes, with parties needing to navigate a more complex caste landscape.
Increased intra-community conflict could divert attention away from broader issues of Dalit rights and social justice. As different sub-castes compete for limited resources, the sense of collective struggle against caste discrimination may be diluted, potentially weakening the overall Dalit movement.
The Supreme Court’s endorsement of sub-classification in Andhra Pradesh may embolden other states to pursue similar policies, leading to a patchwork of reservation policies across India. This could result in increased litigation and judicial intervention in reservation matters, with the courts playing a more active role in shaping social policy.
The legal landscape for the Scheduled Castes could become more uncertain, as different states implement varying forms of sub-classification. This might lead to confusion and inconsistency in how Scheduled Caste reservations are applied, potentially disadvantaging those who are less politically or socially influential.
Over time, the sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes may contribute to the further entrenchment of caste identities in Indian politics. Instead of moving towards a more egalitarian society, this could reinforce caste as a central organising principle in both politics and society.
The deepening of caste identities might hinder social mobility and integration for the Scheduled Castes, as individuals are increasingly defined and limited by their sub-caste status. This could perpetuate existing inequalities and create new barriers to social and economic advancement.
In summary, sub-classification carries significant risks of deepening divisions, weakening the overall Dalit movement and altering the landscape of caste-based politics in India.
Anand Teltumbde is a former CEO, Petronet India Limited, professor at IIT Kharagpur and the Goa Institute of Management, writer and civil rights activist.