Current Affairs Topics Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

SC internal reservation: Religious heads spearheading campaign of their communities

March 22, 2026 4 min read Polity & Governance Social Issues GS Paper 2
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • Ahead of Karnataka's Special Cabinet meeting to decide on internal reservation within the 15% Scheduled Caste (SC) quota, religious heads of various SC communities launched campaigns to advocate for their communities' share.
  • The Karnataka Cabinet had earlier (October 2024) approved the principle of internal sub-categorisation within the SC quota and set up a one-man commission to recommend a reservation matrix.
  • The Justice Nagamohan Das Commission's report lists nearly 50 castes as "most backward" within the SC category; the proposed matrix divides the 15% SC quota into three sub-categories.
  • The Cabinet discussion on the final matrix was deferred in March 2026, with deliberations continuing on the percentage allocation for each sub-category (reported split: SC Left 6%, SC Right 5.5%, touchable Dalits 4.5%, others 1%).
  • Karnataka's move follows the Supreme Court's landmark August 2024 verdict in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, which upheld the constitutional validity of sub-classification within SC/ST categories.
  • The Valmiki and Madiga communities — among the most marginalised SC communities in Karnataka — are at the centre of the campaign for a larger share of the SC sub-quota.

Static Topic Bridges

Supreme Court Verdict on SC Sub-Categorisation — State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024)

On August 1, 2024, a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, by a 6:1 majority, upheld the power of states to sub-classify the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories for reservation purposes — allowing states to create preferential quotas for more backward sub-groups within the broader SC/ST categories.

  • The 2024 verdict overruled the five-judge bench decision in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004), which had held that SC/STs form a homogeneous class and sub-classification is impermissible as it amounts to tampering with the Presidential List under Article 341.
  • The Constitution Bench held that Article 14 (equality) permits sub-classification of caste based on degrees of backwardness — historical evidence shows all SCs/STs do not form a homogenous class.
  • Key safeguard: states cannot earmark 100% of a quota for a sub-class; sub-classification must be justified by empirical data showing inadequate representation of the sub-group.
  • The bench also made observations on applying creamy layer criteria within SC/ST categories — this aspect remains legally contested and has not been made binding.
  • Chief Justice DY Chandrachud led the bench; the lone dissenter was Justice Bela Trivedi.

Connection to this news: Karnataka's sub-categorisation exercise is a direct legislative implementation of the Davinder Singh ruling — the Special Cabinet meeting translates the Supreme Court's constitutional permission into state policy.

Constitutional Framework for Scheduled Caste Reservations

Article 341 of the Constitution empowers the President (by public notification, in consultation with the Governor for state lists) to specify the castes, races, or tribes that shall be Scheduled Castes. Only Parliament can amend this Presidential List — states cannot add or remove castes from it.

  • Article 15(4) enables the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes or SC/STs — the foundational basis for reservation in educational institutions.
  • Article 16(4) enables reservation in public employment for adequately underrepresented backward classes including SC/STs.
  • The 93rd Constitutional Amendment, 2005 inserted Article 15(5) to enable reservation in private unaided educational institutions.
  • The overall 50% cap on reservation (excluding Extraordinary Backward Classes) derives from M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992, the Mandal case).
  • Karnataka's SC reservation stands at 15% of the 50% OBC+SC+ST total reservation — sub-categorisation operates within this 15%.

Connection to this news: Sub-categorisation works within the existing 15% SC quota — it does not breach the 50% ceiling. The Karnataka Cabinet's matrix must stay within this constitutionally mandated share.

Historical Demand and Social Justice Rationale

The demand for sub-categorisation within SC reservations is based on the argument that certain castes within the SC list have benefited disproportionately from reservation over decades (the "creamy layer" within SC, informally termed "dominant Dalits"), while the most marginalised communities — Madigas, Valmikis, Safai Karamcharis — remain largely excluded.

  • The Madiga Reservation Porata Samithi (MRPS) in Andhra Pradesh pioneered the sub-categorisation demand in the 1990s; their campaign led to the Andhra Pradesh SC Sub-Classification Ordinance of 2000, which the Supreme Court struck down in E.V. Chinnaiah (2004).
  • The National Commission for Scheduled Castes has supported sub-categorisation to address intra-SC inequality in reservation benefits.
  • Justice G. Rohini Commission (appointed 2017) was constituted by the Central Government to examine sub-categorisation of OBC reservations; its final report recommended a 4-category matrix for OBCs.
  • Karnataka's SC population: approximately 24% of the state's total population, making the sub-categorisation debate politically significant.

Connection to this news: The Karnataka exercise is the most concrete post-Davinder Singh sub-categorisation attempt among large states — its outcome will likely be studied as a template by other states including Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Punjab.

Key Facts & Data

  • Karnataka SC quota: 15% of total reservation (within the 50% constitutional ceiling).
  • Proposed sub-matrix (reported): SC Left 6% + SC Right 5.5% + touchable Dalits 4.5% + others 1% = 15%.
  • Davinder Singh verdict: August 1, 2024 — 7-judge bench, 6:1 majority, overruled E.V. Chinnaiah (2004).
  • Justice Nagamohan Das Commission: Karnataka's one-man body recommending the sub-categorisation matrix.
  • SC population in Karnataka: ~24% of total population.
  • E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004): earlier five-judge bench ruling that sub-classification violates Article 341 — overruled in 2024.
  • The Presidential List under Article 341 cannot be modified by state governments; sub-categorisation operates within the existing list.