Examine the constitutional and administrative framework governing reservation for Scheduled Castes in Central Government services. How adequate is current data infrastructure to assess intra-SC disparities?

Reservation for Scheduled Castes rests on a firm constitutional-administrative scaffolding, yet the data architecture that should measure who within the SC category benefits remains thin — leaving aggregate success masking internal inequity.

Constitutional framework

• Article 341 empowers the President to notify castes as SCs for a State/UT; inclusion rests on backwardness rooted in the historic practice of untouchability [1].
• Article 341(2) insulates the list from executive tinkering — modification needs Parliamentary legislation, with prior concurrence of the Registrar General of India and the National Commission for SCs [1].
• Articles 16(4) and 335 supply the mandate of adequate representation, balanced against administrative efficiency [2].

Administrative machinery

• DoPT operationalises quotas: in direct recruitment on all-India basis by open competition, SC 15%, ST 7.5%, OBC 27%; the post-based roster system tracks compliance [2].
• Ministry-wise representation is compiled annually — SC representation in Central Government services stood at 17.14% as on 01.01.2026, above the mandated 15%, and was 17.49% as on 01.01.2016 — showing sustained fulfilment of the aggregate benchmark [3].

Data infrastructure: the weak link

• Caste-wise breakup of representation within the SC category in government service is not centrally maintained [3].
• Census 2011 remains the sole source of caste-wise SC population and educational data — over a decade old, and it captures population/education, not employment shares [3].
• Government has stated no proposal for a national survey on caste-wise social, educational, economic and employment representation of SCs [3].
• Consequence: sub-categorisation policy, permitted by the Supreme Court, must rest on state-level surveys or proxy data rather than robust national evidence.

The framework is constitutionally secure and administratively functional at the aggregate level; the deficit is evidentiary. Building a periodic, disaggregated database — through the upcoming Census and DoPT reporting reforms — would let targeting follow need, realising Article 341's promise of substantive equality for the most marginalised SC groups.