Author : Tanuja Goria , National Law Institute University (Bhopal)
Abstract
The recent initiative by Telangana to sub-categorize Scheduled Castes (SCs) within its reservation system marks a historic moment in Indian affirmative action policy. As the first state to implement intra-SC quotas through the Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2025, Telangana has reignited a constitutional debate that pits social equity against judicial precedent. Haryana and Punjab have also introduced policies aimed at addressing internal inequities within SCs, but these have run into legal roadblocks, especially given the Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling in E.V. Chinnaiah which classified SCs as a homogeneous group meaning It cannot be further categorized under Article 341. With a 7-judge Constitution Bench now reviewing this position, the issue is at a constitutional crossroads. This article examines the legal framework, factual foundation, and consequences of SC sub-categorization, exploring how judicial rulings, state authority, and shifting concepts of social justice interact.
Introduction
India’s reservation framework was envisioned as a mechanism to remedy historical injustices against the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes. However, the blanket treatment of SCs as a homogeneous category has created an internal imbalance. Empirical evidence increasingly points to dominant sub-castes capturing a disproportionate share of benefits, leaving the most marginalized SCs underrepresented in education, employment, and political representation.
States like Telangana, Haryana, and Punjab have attempted to address this imbalance through sub-categorization of SC reservations. These state-level policies aim to ensure equitable intra-caste representation, but they face constitutional challenges, particularly the Chinnaiah ruling, which held that SCs, once notified under Article 341, form a single, indivisible class.
This article examines whether sub-categorization of SCs is legally permissible, focusing on the legislative basis, judicial precedents, and data-driven approaches. It also explores potential pathways forward through constitutional amendment or judicial reinterpretation.
Judicial Precedents: The Legal Tug-of-War
- State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) – This case recognized that states could make “reasonable classifications” within SCs/STs under Article 16(4) to ensure equitable distribution of benefits, laying early groundwork for addressing intra-group disparities.
- E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of AP (2005) – A 5-judge bench ruled SCs are a “homogeneous class” under Article 341, prohibiting states from sub-classifying SCs. This remains the biggest legal obstacle for state sub-categorization policies today.
- M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) – Established that any reservation policy (including potential sub-categorization) must be supported by quantifiable data on backwardness and cannot breach the 50% quota ceiling, setting evidentiary standards.
- Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi (2018) – Upheld Punjab’s 15% sub-quota for Balmiki-Mazhabi Sikh SCs as a valid religious exception under Article 341, creating the only approved model of SC sub-categorization so far.
- Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2020) – Referred the question of SC sub-categorization to a 7-judge Constitution Bench, potentially reconsidering Chinnaiah’s strict homogeneity principle. This pending decision will determine the validity of recent state laws.
- Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister (2021) – Reaffirmed the Indra Sawhney 50% reservation ceiling, meaning any sub-categorization must operate within this limit, affecting how states can structure their quotas.
Constitutional Framework: The Centralized vs. Federal Dilemma
“The key issue in the debate revolves around Article 341 of the Constitution, which grants the President sole authority to designate Scheduled Castes. Once a caste is added to the official list, neither Parliament nor state legislatures have the power to alter or divide it without passing a formal law through Parliament.
States, however, argue that Entry 41 of List II (State List) allows them to regulate public services and formulate reservation policies based on local socio-economic dynamics. This creates a constitutional tension between the President’s power to define SCs and the states’ administrative authority to allocate reservations.
The 102nd Constitutional Amendment, enacted in 2018, added Article 342A to regulate the list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) at the central level. While this amendment consolidated control over OBC classification, it did not alter the categorization of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), creating uncertainty about whether SCs can be sub-categorized in a similar manner.
State Experiments: Case Studies of Telangana, Haryana, and Punjab
Feature
Telangana (2025)
Haryana (2023)
Punjab (2006)
Legal Basis
SC (Rationalization) Act, 2025 (Gazette: 14/04/2025)
Deprived SC Act, 2023
Punjab SC/BC Act, 2006
Sub-Groups
3 Groups:
1. 1% (15 castes)
2. 9% (18 castes)
3. 5% (26 castes)
50% quota for “Deprived SCs” (A-D categories)
15% sub-quota for Balmiki-Mazhabi Sikhs
Implementation
Active (from 14/04/2025)
Stayed by Punjab & Haryana HC
Operational since 2006
Data Used
Socio-economic and educational indicators
Internal deprivation index
Sikh SC list (religious exception)
Possible Judicial Outcomes
Scenario 1: SC Upholds Chinnaiah and Invalidates Sub-Categorization
In this scenario, the Supreme Court would reaffirm its ruling in E.V. Chinnaiah, thereby striking down any attempt by states to introduce sub-categorization within the Scheduled Castes (SCs). As a result, laws enacted by states like Telangana and Haryana that seek to allocate reservations based on internal classifications within SCs would be rendered void.
However, Punjab’s exception for Sikh Scheduled Castes may remain unaffected depending on judicial interpretation. The ruling would strengthen the constitutional principle that SCs form a homogeneous class under Article 341, meaning that states lack the authority to make further distinctions within the category. Any future attempt to permit sub-categorization would require explicit parliamentary intervention—Parliament alone would have the power to amend Article 341 to facilitate such changes.
Scenario 2: Supreme Court Allows Sub-Categorization with Conditions
Alternatively, the Court might permit sub-categorization but impose stringent conditions to ensure its constitutionality. For states to implement sub-categorization, they would need to demonstrate quantifiable data proving that certain sub-groups within the Scheduled Castes suffer from deeper historical disadvantages compared to others. This would align with the judicial principles laid down in M. Nagaraj, which requires empirical justification for affirmative action.
Additionally, the ruling would reinforce the 50% total reservation cap established in Indra Sawhney, ensuring that any new quota adjustments do not exceed constitutional limits. To prevent arbitrary divisions, the Court may also introduce a sunset clause, requiring periodic reviews and re-evaluations of sub-groups to confirm whether disparities persist.
Under this outcome, Telangana’s policy—which is backed by strong empirical data—would likely be validated. However, Haryana would face the challenge of conducting a caste census to justify its classification criteria, ensuring adherence to judicial standards.
Scenario 3: Supreme Court directs the issue to be examined by a more extensive Constitutional Bench.
In this scenario, the Supreme Court, recognizing the complexity of the issue, may decide that the matter requires further deliberation by a larger constitutional bench. Such a referral would delay a final and decisive verdict, leaving states in a legal grey area where ad-hoc policies continue to operate without overarching constitutional clarity.
Without a definitive ruling, states may continue implementing sub-categorization measures without uniform legal principles, potentially leading to inconsistencies across jurisdictions. This could create governance challenges until a conclusive precedent is established.
Recommendations and Way Forward – To strike a constitutional balance between central authority and state autonomy, the path forward may lie in adopting a multipronged strategy anchored in legality, transparency, and equity.
- Firstly, a constitutional amendment introducing a new Article 341A—mirroring Article 342A for OBCs—could be considered .This measure would grant states the authority to classify Scheduled Castes (SCs) into sub-categories within their respective regions, while ensuring that any such decisions remain under the supervision of Parliament.
- Such a move would provide the much-needed legal foundation for sub-classification and resolve ambiguities stemming from Article 341.
- Second, states must prioritize data-driven policymaking. Any effort to divide SC reservations should be rooted in scientifically validated socio-economic and educational metrics. Telangana’s model, which employed a composite index to identify backwardness among SC sub-groups, can serve as a replicable benchmark. Periodic caste-based surveys and independent audits would further legitimize the process.
- Third, institutional safeguards should be strengthened. A dedicated cell within the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) could be created to monitor disparities among SC communities, recommend rotational quotas, and ensure that no sub-group monopolizes reservation benefits indefinitely. Sunset clauses should be integrated into state laws, mandating automatic expiry or review of sub-quotas after a fixed period.
- Fourth, robust anti-fraud mechanisms must be implemented to ensure fairness. States should invest in digital infrastructure to verify caste certificates and penalize fraudulent claims with strict fines or legal action. Telangana’s penalty framework—imposing fines and criminal charges—offers a strong deterrent.
- Lastly, the Supreme Court should lay down doctrinal clarity. It must determine whether intra-caste classification among SCs constitutes a ‘reasonable classification’ under Article 14, and whether it aligns with the spirit of Article 341. If so, a precedent for conditional sub-categorization could be established, allowing states to act within constitutionally defined limits.
Conclusion: Navigating the Tightrope of Constitutionalism and Equity
The sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes challenges the existing framework of affirmative action in India. As Telangana becomes the first state to implement a data-backed sub-classification model, the judiciary must now confront a pivotal question: Can constitutional principles evolve to reflect social complexity?
The Supreme Court’s eventual decision will not only determine the fate of the Telangana and Haryana laws but also shape the future trajectory of caste-based affirmative action in India. The balance to be struck is delicate—between preserving the sanctity of Articles 341 and 342 and acknowledging the nuanced reality of stratification within SCs.
Ultimately, a blend of constitutional clarity, judicial pragmatism, and empirical rigor is essential. Whether through a new Article 341A or conditional judicial validation, India’s legal system must recognize that true equality lies not just in treating equals equally, but in treating unequals equitably. Only through this approach can the ideal of social justice be truly achieved in India’s complex and diverse society.
FAQs
- What is sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes (SCs)?
Sub-categorization refers to the division of the Scheduled Caste category into smaller sub-groups for the purpose of more equitable distribution of reservation benefits among them. This aims to ensure that the most marginalized sub-castes also get fair access to education, jobs, and political representation. - Is sub-categorization legally valid?
This is currently under review by a 7-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. While Chinnaiah invalidated state-level sub-categorization, subsequent rulings like Davinder Singh reopened the debate. The final legal position is still evolving. - Can Parliament allow sub-categorization of SCs?
Yes. A constitutional amendment—such as a proposed Article 341A—can explicitly grant Parliament or states the power to sub-categorize SCs, similar to how Article 342A governs OBC categorization post the 102nd Constitutional Amendment. - How is Telangana’s law different from earlier attempts?
Telangana’s Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2025 is the first legislation based on comprehensive data using a composite socio-economic and educational index. It creates three sub-groups within SCs and aims for equitable distribution without altering the central SC list. - What data is required to justify sub-categorization?
Following M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh, any reservation policy—including sub-categorization—must be supported by quantifiable data showing backwardness, inadequate representation, and administrative efficiency
References
Case Laws –
- E V Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh (2005) 1 SCC 394.
- M Nagaraj v Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212.
- Indra Sawhney v Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477.
- Jarnail Singh v Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) 10 SCC 396.
- State of Kerala v N M Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310.
- Davinder Singh v State of Punjab (2020) 8 SCC 1.
- Dr Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v Chief Minister (2021) 8 SCC 1.
Legislations –
- Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act 2025 (Telangana).
- The Constitution of India, arts 14, 15, 16, 341, 342A.
- Deprived Scheduled Castes (Reservation in Services) Act 2023 (Haryana).
- Punjab SC and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act 2006.
- 102nd Constitutional Amendment Act 2018.
Report –
- National Commission for Scheduled Castes Reports (2020–2024).
