Diversity and Discrimination

UPSC GS2 — Dr. B.R. Ambedkar:

Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (1891–1956) is India's most important figure in the fight against caste discrimination:

• Born into the Mahar caste (classified as "untouchable")
• First Dalit to earn a doctorate from Columbia University (USA) and London School of Economics
• Principal drafter of the Indian Constitution — deliberately included anti-discrimination provisions
• Resigned from Nehru Cabinet (1951) over Hindu Code Bill delay — wanted to codify women's rights
• Converted to Buddhism (1956) — rejecting Hinduism's caste structure; 14 October 1956, Nagpur; approximately 3.65–5 lakh followers converted at the Nagpur ceremony; additional thousands at Chandrapur on 16 October; this sparked the Dalit Buddhist movement
• Bharat Ratna (1990, posthumously)
• Founded: Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha, Independent Labour Party, Scheduled Castes Federation, Republican Party of India

His contributions to Constitution:

• Fundamental Rights (Part III) — explicitly banning discrimination
• Article 17 — abolishing untouchability
• Reservation system for SCs and STs in legislatures, government jobs, education
• Equal pay for equal work (DPSP)
• Hindu Code Bill (later enacted as 4 laws: Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act)

[Additional] Manual Scavenging — Legal Framework, Deaths, and Supreme Court Orders (GS2 — Social Justice / Vulnerable Sections):

PEMSR Act 2013 — key provisions and penalties:

Rehabilitation mandate under 2013 Act:

• Surveys to identify all manual scavengers; photo identity cards
• One-time cash assistance; scholarships for children; residential plots
• Skill development training and loans for alternative livelihoods

Sewer deaths — government data (Parliament, July 2024):

The government's contradiction: India simultaneously claims there are "no manual scavengers" (legal position) while reporting deaths from "hazardous sewer cleaning" — creating two statistical categories in parliamentary answers that mask the scale of the problem.

Key Supreme Court cases:

Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India (March 27, 2014):

• PIL filed 2003; Articles 14, 17, 21, 32, 47 invoked
• Directions: States to survey and identify all manual scavengers; compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for every sewer/septic tank death since 1993 to dependent family members; rehabilitation plan to be framed

Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India (October 20, 2023):

• Bench: Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar
• 14 key directions including:
  • Compensation for sewer deaths increased from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 30 lakhs
  • Mechanization of sewer cleaning to be mandated
  • Nationwide reliable survey of all manual scavengers
  • Prohibition of manual sewer cleaning without safety equipment in major cities
• Contempt proceedings (December 11, 2024): SC criticized Union inaction; ordered fresh state-wise status report on compliance
• January 2025 order: Manual scavenging banned in 6 metropolitan cities — Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Bengaluru, Hyderabad — with immediate effect
• Court's assessment: "Eradication of manual scavenging has not happened anywhere, not even in one municipality."

NAMASTE scheme — implementation:

• Profiles all Sewer and Septic Tank Workers (SSWs) — health insurance under Ayushman Bharat PM-JAY, PPE kits, occupational safety training, capital subsidy for mechanized equipment
• Replaces the earlier SRMS (Self-Employment Scheme for Rehabilitation of Manual Scavengers, 2007)
• Covers all 4,800+ ULBs — recognising the problem is concentrated in urban areas where sewer infrastructure exists

UPSC synthesis: Manual scavenging = GS2 Social Justice + Vulnerable Sections. Key exam facts: PEMSR Act 2013 (NOT 1993 — 1993 was the first law; 2013 replaced it with stronger provisions including sewer/septic tank hazardous cleaning); all offences = cognizable and non-bailable; sewer deaths = 377 (2019–2023), 1,313 total since 1993 (NCSK); SKA case 2014 = Rs. 10 lakh compensation; Dr. Balram Singh case October 2023 = Rs. 30 lakh compensation = 14 directions; contempt proceedings = December 2024; NAMASTE = MoHUA + MoSJE joint scheme = launched August 2022 = Rs. 100 crore = 4,800+ ULBs. Prelims trap: NAMASTE is a joint scheme of MoHUA AND MoSJE (NOT just Social Justice Ministry alone); current governing law = 2013 Act (NOT 1993 Act — the 1993 Act was the predecessor, replaced by 2013); compensation in 2023 Dr. Balram Singh = Rs. 30 lakh (NOT 10 lakh — that was the 2014 SKA judgment figure); SC sub-categorization (2024) is a DIFFERENT case entirely (not related to manual scavenging).

[Additional] State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) — SC Sub-Categorization Judgment (GS2 — Polity / Social Justice):

Case background:

• Punjab has had a 1975 government notification giving first preference within SC quota to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs — communities engaged in manual scavenging and historically the most marginalized within Punjab's SCs
• This was challenged; struck down by Punjab & Haryana HC in 2006 citing E.V. Chinnaiah (2004)
• The question was referred to a Constitution Bench

Verdict: August 1, 2024 — 6:1 majority by a 7-judge Constitution Bench:

Core holdings of the majority:

1. SC/ST lists are NOT homogeneous — different castes within these lists have faced varying degrees of discrimination and social backwardness
2. States empowered under Articles 15 and 16 to identify differing degrees of social backwardness within SC/ST lists and sub-classify accordingly
3. Sub-classification does NOT alter the Presidential List under Articles 341/342 — no caste is added or removed; only distribution within the existing quota is adjusted
4. States must justify sub-classification with empirical data and rational principle of differentiation
5. The same logic that Indra Sawhney (1992) applied to OBCs (permitting sub-classification for "most backward") applies equally to SCs/STs
6. E.V. Chinnaiah (2004) is overruled

Why Chinnaiah's "homogeneous group" premise was wrong: Chinnaiah held that since all SCs are placed on equal footing by the Presidential List, states cannot draw distinctions within them. The 2024 majority held this was factually incorrect — some SC communities (like those in manual scavenging for generations) remain far more marginalized than other SC communities that have substantially benefited from reservation over decades. Recognizing this factual inequality within the SC list does not violate the constitutional scheme.

Creamy layer for SCs/STs — the non-binding observations:

• 4 of 7 judges (including Justice Gavai, now CJI) stated that a creamy layer policy should eventually be developed for SCs/STs — to exclude the most affluent from reservation benefits
• Criteria must be different from OBC creamy layer (since SC/ST backwardness has different historical roots)
• This was obiter dicta (not ratio decidendi) — not part of the binding holding
• January 2025: SC stated "government will take the call" — leaving it to the legislature/executive
• Review petitions were rejected by the SC in October 2024 — Davinder Singh judgment is final

State-wise implications after Davinder Singh:

• Punjab: Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh first-preference-within-SC-quota policy (1975 origin) is now constitutionally valid
• Tamil Nadu, Haryana: Similar sub-classification laws validated
• Other states: Can now introduce sub-classification if supported by empirical data on differential backwardness
• Challenge: No granular sub-community socio-economic data exists at national level (caste census does not cover sub-community distinctions); states need their own surveys

UPSC synthesis: SC sub-categorization = GS2 Polity + Social Justice. Key exam facts: State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh = August 1, 2024 = 7-judge Constitution Bench = 6:1 majority; CJI Chandrachud + 5 others (majority); Justice Bela Trivedi (sole dissent); overrules E.V. Chinnaiah (2004) — 5-judge bench which held SCs form a "homogeneous group"; states CAN sub-classify using Articles 15 and 16 with empirical data; does NOT alter Presidential List (Article 341); 4 judges incl. Justice B.R. Gavai observed creamy layer should eventually apply to SCs/STs (NOT binding); review petitions rejected October 2024; basis = Indra Sawhney (1992) (Mandal case) which permitted OBC sub-classification. Prelims trap: Davinder Singh was decided by a 7-judge bench (NOT 9); the creamy layer observation for SCs/STs = NOT binding (it was obiter dicta by 4 judges); E.V. Chinnaiah (2004) was a 5-judge bench (2004, NOT 2005 — reported in 2005 SCC but decided 2004); sub-categorization does NOT mean adding new castes to the Presidential List — only priority distribution within existing list.