Mumbai: The Maharashtra government’s move towards sub-categorisation within Scheduled Castes has come under sharp scrutiny, with senior Congress leader and former minister Dr Nitin Raut questioning the legal and procedural basis of the exercise, particularly in the absence of empirical data and transparency.
In a detailed representation addressed to the Chief Secretary, Raut has raised fundamental concerns over the manner in which the process is being carried out, warning that any decision taken without a proper data-backed framework could face legal challenges and trigger social tensions within communities.
At the centre of his objection is the non-disclosure of the Anant Bader Committee report, which forms the basis of the government’s current exercise. Despite inviting objections from stakeholders between April 10 and April 15, the report itself has not been made public.
Raut has questioned how meaningful objections can be filed without access to the primary document. “If the report is not in the public domain, how can affected groups understand its findings or respond to it?” he has asked, terming the process a violation of natural justice.
More significantly, Raut has flagged the absence of empirical data, which he argues is a mandatory requirement as per recent Supreme Court rulings on sub-categorisation within reserved categories. Without caste-wise socio-economic data covering education, employment, and representation, any attempt to divide quotas would be arbitrary and legally vulnerable.
The letter points out that neither the state nor the Centre has placed such disaggregated data in the public domain so far, raising serious doubts over the foundation of the current policy push.
Expanding the scope of the debate, Raut has argued that if sub-categorisation is to be implemented, it cannot be restricted to government jobs alone. He has called for a uniform application across political representation, higher education, and recruitment through bodies such as UPSC and MPSC, as well as in public sector institutions.
This, he suggests, is essential to ensure that the principle of equitable distribution is not selectively applied, but consistently followed across sectors where reservation operates.
Raut has also questioned the need to constitute another committee under the Chief Minister if the existing Bader Committee has already conducted a comprehensive study. He has indicated that such parallel processes create confusion and raise concerns about whether the original findings are being withheld or reconsidered.
In a broader policy demand, he has reiterated the need for a comprehensive caste census in Maharashtra, arguing that only updated and verifiable data can provide the basis for any structural reform in reservation policy. Without this, he has warned, the process risks deepening divisions rather than addressing inequities.
The letter carries a clear caution: a hurried decision based on incomplete data and limited consultation could lead to administrative complications and social unrest within Scheduled Castes themselves.
As the debate over reservation restructuring intensifies nationally, Raut’s intervention places the spotlight back on a core issue — whether governments are prepared to ground such politically sensitive decisions in transparent, verifiable data, or proceed on assumptions that may not withstand judicial scrutiny.
