Introduction
India’s affirmative action system, rooted in the Constitution, provides reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) as a way to address centuries of caste-based oppression. However, a persistent challenge has emerged: not all SC sub-castes benefit equally from these reservations. Some dominant sub-castes have historically cornered a disproportionate share, leaving the most marginalized groups still struggling. This leads us to the demand for internal reservation — a system that divides the SC quota among its sub-castes to ensure equitable distribution.
Why Internal Reservation?
Internal reservation means sub-dividing the 15% SC quota in jobs, education, and political representation among various SC sub-groups. This aims to correct intra-group inequalities.
Uneven Distribution of Benefits
-
Studies and data show that certain dominant SC sub-castes like Adi Dravida or Chamar have received a large portion of SC benefits.
-
Smaller, more marginalized communities such as Madiga, Pasi, or Balmiki often remain underrepresented despite eligibility.
Rising Demands from Marginalized SCs
-
Movements across Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka have sought justice within the quota system.
-
These groups argue that real empowerment requires internal equity, not just broad categorization.
Constitutional and Legal Framework
Article 341: Presidential List of SCs
-
This article allows the President to specify the castes deemed as Scheduled Castes.
-
However, the Constitution does not provide for sub-classification within the SC category.
Supreme Court’s Key Judgments
E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004)
-
Struck down the AP law that sought internal SC reservations.
-
Ruled that SCs are a single, indivisible class, and sub-classifying them would be unconstitutional.
2020: Referral to Larger Bench
-
In 2020, the Supreme Court decided that the Chinnaiah judgment requires reconsideration.
-
A larger bench was formed to re-examine whether sub-classification within SCs is legally valid.
The Central Government’s Stand
-
In 2022, the Union Government supported sub-categorization in court.
-
It argued that equity demands internal reservation, especially when data clearly shows inequitable access to opportunities.
-
However, critics warn that too much subdivision may weaken the collective strength of SCs and invite political manipulation.
Examples from Indian States
Andhra Pradesh & Telangana
-
The Madiga Reservation Porata Samiti (MRPS) has been at the forefront demanding internal reservation.
-
These states witnessed strong agitation for dividing the 15% SC quota based on population share.
Tamil Nadu
-
The SC quota is internally divided: Arundhathiyars (3%) and others (12%).
-
However, this is challenged on grounds of legality following the Chinnaiah judgment.
Arguments in Favor of Internal Reservation
-
Ensures fair share of resources among the most backward SC groups.
-
Prevents elite capture by dominant sub-castes.
-
Reinforces the spirit of social justice — ensuring the benefits of affirmative action reach all intended groups.
Arguments Against Internal Reservation
-
Undermines SC unity and may promote division.
-
Could lead to a slippery slope of endless sub-classifications.
-
Requires constitutional amendment to avoid conflict with Supreme Court judgments.
Conclusion
The debate around internal reservation for SC sub-castes reflects a deeper tension within India's social justice framework — how to balance group rights with intra-group equity. The Supreme Court’s pending decision on the Chinnaiah review will be historic. Until then, the demand continues to gain political and social traction, especially among the most marginalized SCs.
As India evolves, affirmative action too must evolve, not just in scale, but in fairness. Ensuring that no sub-caste is left behind is vital if reservations are to truly serve their purpose — breaking the centuries-old cycle of caste oppression.