Internal reservation: Nomadic and micro communities to question latest matrix in Karnataka HIgh Court

Nomadic, semi-nomadic, and micro-communities across India have intensified their demand for sub-classification (internal reservation) within Scheduled Caste ...

What Happened

Nomadic, semi-nomadic, and micro-communities across India have intensified their demand for sub-classification (internal reservation) within Scheduled Caste and OBC quota categories, asserting that dominant groups within these broad categories have captured a disproportionate share of reservation benefits.
These communities question their near-total absence from government jobs and educational institutions despite being formally listed in SC/ST/OBC schedules, arguing that without internal reservation, larger and better-organised communities within the same category crowd out the most backward groups.
Their mobilisation follows the Supreme Court's landmark seven-judge Constitution bench verdict of August 1, 2024, which held — by a 6:1 majority — that sub-classification within Scheduled Castes is constitutionally permissible.
States such as Karnataka have begun implementing sub-classification frameworks following the court's ruling, with nomadic communities receiving a dedicated sub-quota within the SC category.
The central demand is for empirical data collection on representation levels of each community, followed by sub-quotas calibrated to their actual backwardness and underrepresentation.

Static Topic Bridges

Supreme Court's Sub-Classification Verdict (2024): State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh

On August 1, 2024, a seven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling that states have the power to sub-classify Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for reservation purposes to ensure more equitable distribution within broad category quotas.

Bench: Seven-judge Constitution bench (led by then-CJI DY Chandrachud; included Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma).
Verdict: 6:1 in favour of permitting sub-classification.
Overruled: EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004), which had held that SC communities form a homogenous class and cannot be sub-classified.
Reasoning: The court held that SCs are not a homogenous group; the historical and contemporary backwardness of individual communities within the broad SC umbrella varies significantly; states have a legitimate interest in ensuring the "most backwards among the backwards" benefit from reservation.
Empirical basis required: States must justify sub-classification using empirical data on inadequacy of representation of the sub-group in question — sub-classification cannot be arbitrary or politically motivated.
Creamy layer observation: A majority also held that the creamy layer principle — presently applicable to OBCs — should be considered for SC/ST reservation as well, though this was an observation and not a binding direction.

Connection to this news: The SC's 2024 verdict is the constitutional backbone of nomadic and micro-communities' current demands. It has opened a legal pathway for states to carve out sub-quotas, validating the long-standing grievance that reservation benefits are cornered by relatively better-off communities within broad SC/OBC categories.

Nomadic, Semi-Nomadic, and Denotified Tribes: Who Are They?

India has a historically marginalised population of nomadic, semi-nomadic, and denotified tribes (DNTs). Denotified tribes were formerly classified as "Criminal Tribes" under the colonial Criminal Tribes Act, 1871, and were notified/branded as habitual criminals. After Independence, the Act was repealed in 1952 and these communities were "denotified," but the social stigma and economic marginalisation persisted.

The Renke Commission (2008) estimated the population of DNT communities at approximately 10.74 crore (about 8.55% of India's population at the time).
The Anthropological Survey of India (AnSI) has catalogued 268 denotified, semi-nomadic, and nomadic tribes; 179 communities have been recommended for inclusion in SC, ST, or OBC lists.
These communities lack fixed addresses, permanent housing, and often documentary proof of identity — making it difficult to avail reservation benefits even when formally listed.
The Idate Commission (2017) surveyed DNT communities and found that most remain outside the reach of formal welfare schemes.
A Welfare Development Board for DNTs was established under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

Connection to this news: Many of the most marginalised nomadic communities are formally included in SC or OBC lists but receive almost no reservation benefits in practice. Their demand for internal sub-quotas is a direct response to this gap between formal inclusion and substantive representation.

Reservation Architecture: Article 15(4), 16(4), and the Presidential Lists

The constitutional framework for reservations rests on specific provisions that have evolved through judicial interpretation and constitutional amendments.

Article 15(4): Permits the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes or SC/STs in educational institutions.
Article 16(4): Permits the state to make provisions for reservation of appointments for any backward class of citizens not adequately represented in state services.
Article 341: The President specifies the Scheduled Castes for each state/UT by a public notification (the Presidential List); Parliament may include or exclude communities by law. States cannot unilaterally alter the Presidential List.
Article 342: Similar provision for Scheduled Tribes.
OBC framework: Article 15(4) and 340 (Backward Classes Commission); the Mandal Commission (1980) recommended 27% reservation for OBCs, implemented from 1992 following the Supreme Court's verdict in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) which also upheld the 50% reservation ceiling.
The Supreme Court's 2024 verdict operates within this framework — sub-classification occurs within the existing Presidential List communities; it does not add or remove communities from the list.

Connection to this news: Nomadic communities' demand for internal reservation operates within this constitutional architecture. They are already in the Presidential List but seek sub-classification within the broader SC or OBC quota to ensure their specific communities receive a guaranteed share.

The Representation Problem: Why Broad Quotas Alone Are Insufficient

A persistent critique of India's reservation system is that within broad SC and OBC categories, communities that were socially and economically more organised — even before reservation — have captured a disproportionate share of seats over successive decades.

The Supreme Court observed in the 2024 verdict that some SC communities have taken "all the benefits" of reservation, leaving the most backward sub-groups with near-zero representation despite being on the same list.
Karnataka's post-2024 SC sub-classification allocates 5.25% each to SC Left and SC Right sub-groups and 4.5% to other SCs including nomadic communities, with 1 in every 5 posts in the nomadic sub-quota reserved for 59 identified nomadic (Alemari) communities.
Across states, different dominant SC jatis have historically cornered government employment; nomadic communities — without fixed address, education infrastructure, or political organisation — have been systematically left out.
The demand for empirical data collection before sub-classification is designed to prevent politically motivated sub-quota distribution that may not track actual backwardness.

Connection to this news: The mobilisation of nomadic and micro-communities builds on the Supreme Court's recognition of this problem. Their next step is pressuring state governments to conduct representation surveys and implement data-backed sub-classification.

Key Facts & Data

Landmark verdict: State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh — Supreme Court, August 1, 2024, 6:1 majority; sub-classification of SCs within reservation constitutionally permissible.
Overruled precedent: EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004).
DNT population estimate: ~10.74 crore (Renke Commission, 2008).
Communities surveyed by AnSI: 268 DNT communities; 179 recommended for SC/ST/OBC inclusion.
Karnataka model: SC quota (15%) split — 5.25% SC Left + 5.25% SC Right + 4.5% others (including nomadic); 1 in 5 posts in nomadic category for 59 Alemari communities.
50% ceiling: Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney (1992) capped total reservation at 50% except in extraordinary circumstances.
Article 341: Only Parliament can alter the Presidential List of SCs; states cannot add/remove communities.
Creamy layer: Currently applies to OBCs (income threshold ₹8 lakh/year); SC/ST currently exempt, but 2024 verdict raised it as a consideration for future policy.
Renke Commission: National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes — submitted report 2008.
Idate Commission: Developmental Action Plan for DNTs — submitted report 2017.