<p>The Telangana government’s decision to sub-classify the Scheduled Castes for the purpose of reservation meets a long-standing demand of the weaker sections among the community for specific quotas. The move came seven months after the Supreme Court allowed the sub-classification. A seven-judge bench of the court headed by the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud ruled in August last year that sub-categorisation was not unconstitutional, overruling an earlier verdict of the court. The Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservation) Act, 2025 – the state’s legislation for enabling the sub-classification – divides the SCs into three categories. Group I, consisting of 15 castes, will get 1% of the 15% quota, while Group II, comprising 18 castes, and Group III, consisting of 26 castes, will get 9% and 5% respectively. Telangana is the first state to implement reservation sub-quotas in such a fashion.</p>.Why we must strengthen legislative law-making.<p>The court had observed that the SCs are not a homogeneous group and they faced varying degrees of discrimination. It said the sub-categorisation must ensure “substantive equality” to uplift a socially backward class and the classification must be based on empirical data that proves social backwardness. Various states had appointed commissions to determine the relative backwardness of groups within the SC fold and examine the demand for sub-categorisation. About three decades ago, the undivided Andhra Pradesh government had appointed the Justice Ramachandra Rao Commission which recommended a sub-categorisation into four groups. Though an enabling legislation for this was enacted, the Supreme Court struck it down in 1999. It was the 1999 judgement which the Court overruled and paved the way for the latest decision.</p>.<p>The grievance raised by some sections within the SC community that the relatively dominant castes have disproportionately reaped the benefits of affirmative action is not without merit and has been substantiated by surveys and studies made by commissions. That was the basis of the demands made by the non-dominant groups for separate and differentiated quotas within the overall reservation limits. In Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, the non-dominant Madiga section has been demanding sub-quotas, claiming that the dominant Malas have appropriated the benefits of reservation. The Madigas have waged an agitation over the matter for many decades. Following Telangana, other states are likely to implement the sub-categorisation as it furthers a more meaningful idea of social justice for the widest segment of beneficiaries of reservations. The Andhra Pradesh government has already issued an ordinance to implement it.</p><p><em>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</em></p>
<p>The Telangana government’s decision to sub-classify the Scheduled Castes for the purpose of reservation meets a long-standing demand of the weaker sections among the community for specific quotas. The move came seven months after the Supreme Court allowed the sub-classification. A seven-judge bench of the court headed by the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud ruled in August last year that sub-categorisation was not unconstitutional, overruling an earlier verdict of the court. The Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservation) Act, 2025 – the state’s legislation for enabling the sub-classification – divides the SCs into three categories. Group I, consisting of 15 castes, will get 1% of the 15% quota, while Group II, comprising 18 castes, and Group III, consisting of 26 castes, will get 9% and 5% respectively. Telangana is the first state to implement reservation sub-quotas in such a fashion.</p>.Why we must strengthen legislative law-making.<p>The court had observed that the SCs are not a homogeneous group and they faced varying degrees of discrimination. It said the sub-categorisation must ensure “substantive equality” to uplift a socially backward class and the classification must be based on empirical data that proves social backwardness. Various states had appointed commissions to determine the relative backwardness of groups within the SC fold and examine the demand for sub-categorisation. About three decades ago, the undivided Andhra Pradesh government had appointed the Justice Ramachandra Rao Commission which recommended a sub-categorisation into four groups. Though an enabling legislation for this was enacted, the Supreme Court struck it down in 1999. It was the 1999 judgement which the Court overruled and paved the way for the latest decision.</p>.<p>The grievance raised by some sections within the SC community that the relatively dominant castes have disproportionately reaped the benefits of affirmative action is not without merit and has been substantiated by surveys and studies made by commissions. That was the basis of the demands made by the non-dominant groups for separate and differentiated quotas within the overall reservation limits. In Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, the non-dominant Madiga section has been demanding sub-quotas, claiming that the dominant Malas have appropriated the benefits of reservation. The Madigas have waged an agitation over the matter for many decades. Following Telangana, other states are likely to implement the sub-categorisation as it furthers a more meaningful idea of social justice for the widest segment of beneficiaries of reservations. The Andhra Pradesh government has already issued an ordinance to implement it.</p><p><em>Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.</em></p>
