Quota within quota: A landmark verdict

The Supreme Court judgement allowing states to undertake sub-categorisation of the Scheduled Castes (SCs) for grant of quotas marks an important advancement in reservation jurisprudence.

The seven-judge bench settled the matter on which there were contradictory rulings in the past. The court has ruled that sub-categorisation does not violate the Constitutional mandate of equality, but is a requirement to achieve substantive equality.

This is because the SC groups are not homogeneous—they are not ‘an indivisible’ monolith. Sections within the communities have had unequal access to reservation benefits, thus advancing at different speeds. Sub-categorisation and allocation of the reservation pie on the basis of the current state of backwardness will ultimately lead to the representation of sections thus far not helped by affirmative action.

States like Punjab, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu have tried sub-quotas but faced legal stumbling blocks. The process of sub-categorisation will not be easy, and it should be done justly. The verdict has prescribed that it must be based on “quantifiable and demonstrable data by the states, which cannot act on their whims”.

This is a challenging task. There are over 1,000 SC communities. Their relative backwardness will have to be determined with the help of accepted tools and yardsticks. These may not be confined to representation in government and educational attainments.

The court made a mention of social position, and that too will have to be assessed in relative terms. The relevance of state sub-quotas for reservation at the national level, if they are to be extended there, will have to be addressed because the status of the same group may differ from state to state. 

Comprehensive surveys will have to be made and the demand for a caste census will come into focus in this context.

here is a danger of political and electoral considerations coming into play, and that should be guarded against.

The issue of sub-categorisation has received much attention in Karnataka, and the Siddaramaiah government had earlier demanded a Constitutional amendment to be able to implement it.

Though the court has cleared the idea of sub-quotas, it will take time for the states to fine-tune their policies and work out their schemes for implementation.

Four of the seven judges on the bench have suggested that the “creamy layer” among the SCs and the STs should be identified and excluded from reservations. This is bound to be contentious.