Today's Headlines - 04 August 2023
Report on ‘sub-categorisation’ of OBCs
GS Paper - 2 (Polity)
The long awaited report of a commission set up to examine the sub-categorisation of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) was submitted to President Droupadi Murmu. The four-member commission headed by Justice G Rohini, a retired Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, was appointed on 2 October 2017, and received as many as 13 extensions to its tenure.
Why was this Commission set up?
The commission was set up in recognition of the perceived distortions in the affirmative action policy, which was seen as leading to a situation in which a few castes cornered the bulk of benefits available under the 27% quota for OBCs, and tasked with suggesting corrective actions.
The report of the commission is widely expected to be politically sensitive and the contents of the report have not been made public as yet.
What is the need for sub-categorisation of OBCs?
OBCs get 27% reservation in central government jobs and admission to educational institutions.
There are more than 2,600 entries in the Central List of OBCs, but over the years, a perception has taken root that only a few affluent communities among them have benefited from the quota.
Therefore, there is an argument that a “sub-categorisation” of OBCs — quotas within the 27% quota — is needed in order to ensure “equitable distribution” of the benefits of reservation.
Even as the Justice Rohini Commission was examining the matter, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in August 2020 intervened in the sub-categorisation debate, ruling that the 2005 decision of another five-judge Bench in ‘E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh’ must be revisited.
‘Chinnaiah’ had held that no special sub-quota can be introduced within the quota for SCs and STs for the benefit of castes or tribes that were more backward than the others on these lists.
The 2020 verdict of the SC referring ‘Chinnaiah’ to a larger Bench was passed in ‘State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh’ in which the court examined the validity of a 2006 Punjab law that created sub-classification within the SCs, and sought to reserve half the SC quota for certain identified castes.
The commission’s brief was originally to:
Examine the extent of inequitable distribution of benefits of reservation among the castes or communities included in the broad category of OBCs with reference to such classes included in the Central List.
Work out the mechanism, criteria, norms and parameters in a scientific approach for sub-categorisation within such OBCs.
Take up the exercise of identifying the respective castes or communities or sub-castes or synonyms in the Central List of OBCs and classifying them into their respective sub-categories.
It was set up with tenure of 12 weeks ending 3 January 2018, but was given repeated extensions.
On 30 July 2019, the commission wrote to the government that it had “noted several ambiguities in the list… [and] is of the opinion that these have to be clarified/ rectified before the sub-categorised central list is prepared”.
Thus, on 22 January 2020, a fourth item was added to the terms of reference: “To study the various entries in the Central List of OBCs and recommend correction of any repetitions, ambiguities, inconsistencies and errors of spelling or transcription.”
#upsc #news #headline #report #subcategorisation #OBC #polity #commission #president #droupadimurmu #justice #rohini #commission #distortion #castes #institutions #supremecourt #chinnaiah #andhrapradesh #synonyms #transcription
Report on ‘sub-categorisation’ of OBCs
GS Paper - 2 (Polity)
The long awaited report of a commission set up to examine the sub-categorisation of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) was submitted to President Droupadi Murmu. The four-member commission headed by Justice G Rohini, a retired Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, was appointed on 2 October 2017, and received as many as 13 extensions to its tenure.
Why was this Commission set up?
The commission was set up in recognition of the perceived distortions in the affirmative action policy, which was seen as leading to a situation in which a few castes cornered the bulk of benefits available under the 27% quota for OBCs, and tasked with suggesting corrective actions.
The report of the commission is widely expected to be politically sensitive and the contents of the report have not been made public as yet.
What is the need for sub-categorisation of OBCs?
OBCs get 27% reservation in central government jobs and admission to educational institutions.
There are more than 2,600 entries in the Central List of OBCs, but over the years, a perception has taken root that only a few affluent communities among them have benefited from the quota.
Therefore, there is an argument that a “sub-categorisation” of OBCs — quotas within the 27% quota — is needed in order to ensure “equitable distribution” of the benefits of reservation.
Even as the Justice Rohini Commission was examining the matter, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in August 2020 intervened in the sub-categorisation debate, ruling that the 2005 decision of another five-judge Bench in ‘E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh’ must be revisited.
‘Chinnaiah’ had held that no special sub-quota can be introduced within the quota for SCs and STs for the benefit of castes or tribes that were more backward than the others on these lists.
The 2020 verdict of the SC referring ‘Chinnaiah’ to a larger Bench was passed in ‘State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh’ in which the court examined the validity of a 2006 Punjab law that created sub-classification within the SCs, and sought to reserve half the SC quota for certain identified castes.
The commission’s brief was originally to:
Examine the extent of inequitable distribution of benefits of reservation among the castes or communities included in the broad category of OBCs with reference to such classes included in the Central List.
Work out the mechanism, criteria, norms and parameters in a scientific approach for sub-categorisation within such OBCs.
Take up the exercise of identifying the respective castes or communities or sub-castes or synonyms in the Central List of OBCs and classifying them into their respective sub-categories.
It was set up with tenure of 12 weeks ending 3 January 2018, but was given repeated extensions.
On 30 July 2019, the commission wrote to the government that it had “noted several ambiguities in the list… [and] is of the opinion that these have to be clarified/ rectified before the sub-categorised central list is prepared”.
Thus, on 22 January 2020, a fourth item was added to the terms of reference: “To study the various entries in the Central List of OBCs and recommend correction of any repetitions, ambiguities, inconsistencies and errors of spelling or transcription.”
#upsc #news #headline #report #subcategorisation #OBC #polity #commission #president #droupadimurmu #justice #rohini #commission #distortion #castes #institutions #supremecourt #chinnaiah #andhrapradesh #synonyms #transcription