Development and welfare schemes for vulnerable sections are undertaken to account for historic injustice and to ensure equity. Thus they are, by their nature, not discriminatory but rather affirmative and corrective in approach. However, this apparent discrimination must be understood in a constitutional and socio-economic context.

Why These Schemes Appear Discriminatory

1. Targeted Beneficiaries: Schemes often identify specific groups—like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, women, elderly, or minorities—for preferential treatment.

   Example: Stand-Up India scheme for SC/ST and women entrepreneurs.

2. Exclusive Budgetary Allocations: Government earmarks funds specifically for SCs, STs, minorities, and women under mechanisms like: Scheduled Caste Sub-Plan (SCSP). These ring-fenced allocations are viewed by some as discriminatory in a resource-constrained environment.

3. Caste-based and Community-based Eligibility: Even among similarly placed poor citizens, schemes may prioritize beneficiaries based on social identity rather than economic need.

   Example: A BPL individual from a general category may not receive the same support as one from an SC category under certain schemes like Stand-Up India.

4. Exclusion of 'Merit' Argument: Reservations and welfare support for vulnerable groups in education and employment are perceived by some as compromising meritocracy, especially when cut-off marks or selection criteria differ.

5. Political Instrumentalisation: Welfare schemes targeted at specific communities are often announced before elections, leading to a perception of vote-bank politics.

   Example: Loan waivers for minority communities or special sops for OBC women launched just before assembly polls.

6. Inter-group Competition and Identity Assertion: Targeted schemes have encouraged new caste and community groups (e.g., Jats, Patidars, Marathas) to demand inclusion under OBC or EWS categories.

Why This Discriminatio is Justified and Constitutional

1. Constitutionally Sanctioned Affirmative Action:

   • Article 15(3) empowers the State to make special provisions for women and children.

   Example: Beti Bachao Beti Padhao, Ujjwala Yojana, and PM Matru Vandana Yojana specifically benefit women.

   • Article 16(4) provides for reservations in public employment for backward classes not adequately represented. This justifies job reservations where OBCs and SC/STs receive reserved quotas.

2. Based on the Doctrine of Substantive Equality: Unlike formal equality (treating unequals equally), India adopts substantive equality, ensuring equity by accounting for historical disadvantage.

   Example: The Scheduled Tribes have been among the most excluded from education and health services. Special tribal welfare schemes like Eklavya Model Residential Schools and Vanbandhu Kalyan Yojana target these persistent gaps.

3. Judicial Endorsements of Positive Discrimination: In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court upheld OBC reservations, affirming that positive discrimination is valid when aimed at achieving equality of outcomes.

4. Socio-Economic Data Justifies Targeting:

   • The Periodic Labour Force Survey (2023–24) shows that SC/STs and Muslims continue to have lower LFPR and higher unemployment rates, justifying such schemes.
   • NFHS-5 data shows anemia, dropout, and malnutrition rates are disproportionately higher among SC/ST girls—justifying schemes like Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas (KGBV).

5. Enables Participatory and Inclusive Development: Marginalised groups historically lacked representation and voice in governance.

   Example: In Kerala’s Kudumbashree Mission, women from poor households have gained economic agency and even entered local governance.

6. Fulfilling Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs):

   • Article 38(2): Promote welfare by minimising inequalities in income and status.
   • Article 46: Promote education and economic interests of SCs/STs and protect them from exploitation.

7. Practical Necessity in a Diverse and Unequal Society: India’s social fabric—interwoven with caste, religion, geography, and gender—requires nuanced targeting.

   Example: Aspirational Districts Programme uses data-driven governance to uplift districts with the lowest HDI indicators—many inhabited by STs and minorities.

The so-called “discriminatory” nature of welfare schemes must be interpreted not through the lens of exclusion but of remedial inclusion. Constitutionally valid, ethically sound, and empirically justified, these schemes serve as instruments of social transformation, empowerment, and nation-building.