| Syllabus: GS- II, Subject: Polity, Topic: Right Issues, Issue: Sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) |
Context:
- The S.C. is set to deliver a verdict on whether State governments can sub-classify SC and ST reservation in public employment.
Key points on sub-classification within category:
- Need for SC and ST sub-categorization:
- SCs and STs are diverse categories with varying levels of development.
- States’ authority to provide special measures to the most discriminated castes within SCs and STs should be viewed as promoting equal opportunity.
- Constitutional Provisions:
- The Constitution stresses equality via Articles 14 to 16, recognizing historical caste-based discrimination.
- Article 341 does not necessarily bar sub-classification within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
- Article 341 only bars states from modifying the President’s list of SCs and STs.
- Supreme Court Precedents:
- Since the M. Thomas case in 1975, the Supreme Court has recognized the government’s duty to ensure substantive equality through reservations.
Conclusion:
- Special measures for certain castes within the list do not exclude others from reservation benefits.
- The focus is on achieving fair treatment and equal opportunity for all marginalized groups within the SC and ST categories.
- Sub-classification aligns with the Constitution’s allowance for reasonable classifications to achieve equality.
| +1 Advantage for Mains (Important Judgements)
Earlier Supreme Court Judgement on sub classification: · E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) only Parliament, not state governments, can modify the list of SCs and STs. · Indra Sawhney case (1992), sub-classifications within socially and educationally backward classes (OBCs) for services under the government was permissible. · K.C. Vasanth Kumar & Another vs State Of Karnataka (1985) the propriety of making sub-classifications might depend on the facts of each case. |
