Archive · 30 Aug 2026
Chirag Paswan, Jitan Ram Manjhi Clash Over SC, ST Quotas
Two ministers, Chirag Paswan and Jitan Ram Manjhi, argued about how reservation benefits should be shared.
Reservation is meant to help communities that have faced social discrimination.
Manjhi’s son, Santosh Kumar Suman, said the policy should be reviewed.
He also supported dividing SC and ST groups into smaller categories.
His goal, he said, was to help the communities that had received the least benefit.
Paswan opposed a creamy-layer rule and said such changes could weaken social justice protections.
Manjhi said Paswan’s position could leave poor people without reservation benefits.
The disagreement is linked to a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that allowed states to sub-classify SCs and STs.
Union ministers Chirag Paswan and Jitan Ram Manjhi demanded each other’s resignations during a public dispute over reservation policy.
The argument followed Bihar minister Santosh Kumar Suman’s call to review reservation and support for sub-classifying SC and ST quotas.
Suman said reservation benefits were unevenly distributed and that extremely disadvantaged communities, including Musahars, remained underrepresented.
Paswan opposed a creamy-layer criterion and sub-quotas within SC reservations, saying economic criteria could dilute social justice protections.
Manjhi defended sub-classification as necessary for poorer groups, while the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment allowed states to sub-classify SCs and STs.
- Who
- Union ministers Chirag Paswan and Jitan Ram Manjhi, along with Bihar minister Santosh Kumar Suman.
- What
- A dispute over reviewing reservation policy, sub-classifying SC and ST groups, and applying a possible creamy-layer criterion, with both ministers seeking each other’s resignation.
- When
- Saturday; the broader legal debate follows a 2024 Supreme Court judgment.
- Where
- The remarks were made in Patna and Gaya, Bihar, and concerned reservation policy at the national and Bihar levels.
- Why
- Suman said reservation benefits were distributed unevenly and that the most disadvantaged communities remained deprived; Paswan opposed the proposed changes.
Chirag Paswan’s Position
Jitan Ram Manjhi and Santosh Kumar Suman’s Position
Sub-classification and creamy layer
Chirag Paswan’s Position
Paswan opposed introducing sub-quotas and a creamy-layer criterion within SC reservations, saying the Constitution does not provide reservation on economic grounds.
Jitan Ram Manjhi and Santosh Kumar Suman’s Position
Manjhi and Suman supported sub-classification so reservation benefits could reach the most deprived communities within SC and ST groups.
Impact on poorer communities
Chirag Paswan’s Position
Paswan argued that adding economic criteria could dilute social justice protections while discrimination against Dalits continues.
Jitan Ram Manjhi and Santosh Kumar Suman’s Position
Manjhi and Suman said existing benefits were unevenly distributed and that poorer communities, including Musahars, remained deprived.
Resignations and accountability
Chirag Paswan’s Position
Paswan demanded that Manjhi and Suman resign if they supported a creamy layer and sub-quotas within SC reservations.
Jitan Ram Manjhi and Santosh Kumar Suman’s Position
Manjhi said Paswan should resign because his stance could deprive poor people of reservation benefits.
- Main figures
- Chirag Paswan and Jitan Ram Manjhi are Union ministers; Santosh Kumar Suman is a Bihar minister.
- Political affiliation
- Manjhi’s Hindustan Awam Morcha and Paswan’s Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) are constituents of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance.
- Policy proposal
- Suman called for a review of reservation and supported sub-classifying Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes within existing quotas.
- Paswan’s position
- Paswan opposed a creamy-layer concept and sub-quotas within SC reservations, arguing that economic criteria could dilute social justice.
- Manjhi’s position
- Manjhi said sub-classification was essential in the broader public interest and could help poorer SC communities.
- Communities discussed
- Suman cited the Musahar community and said some groups had benefited more from reservation than others.
- Supreme Court ruling
- The Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that states may sub-classify SCs and STs to reach more deprived groups.
- Centre’s position
- The Centre opposed sub-classification in an affidavit, arguing that affirmative action addresses social discrimination rather than economic deprivation.
