The confrontation escalated on Saturday after Paswan, president of the Lok Janshakti Party, demanded that Manjhi resign from the Union government if he supported introducing a creamy-layer principle or sub-quotas within Scheduled Caste reservation. Paswan also called for the resignation of Manjhi’s son, Santosh Kumar Suman, a minister in Bihar and president of the Hindustani Awam Morcha, which has advocated a review of the existing quota system.
Manjhi and Suman rejected Paswan’s criticism and argued that their proposal was not aimed at ending reservation. Suman said the objective was to examine whether the benefits of affirmative action were reaching the most deprived communities within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. He also backed sub-categorisation within reserved groups, contending that some communities remained substantially underrepresented despite decades of quotas.
The dispute has brought a sensitive policy difference between two NDA allies into the open. Paswan has maintained that reservation for Scheduled Castes is rooted in social discrimination rather than economic status and has opposed attempts to apply a creamy-layer test to the category. He warned that dividing Scheduled Caste quotas could weaken the broader struggle against discrimination.
“If Jitan Ram Manjhi believes in the creamy layer concept, he should first resign. His son should resign too,” Paswan told reporters while arguing that ministers who support such a change should first relinquish positions obtained within the existing framework.
Suman countered that sub-categorisation and the creamy-layer principle were separate questions and accused opponents of mixing the two. He said HAM wanted a community-wise assessment of access to government jobs, senior administrative posts and other benefits to identify groups that had remained at the bottom of the social ladder.
Manjhi, the Union minister for micro, small and medium enterprises, also defended a review of reservation and supported a quota-within-quota approach for more disadvantaged groups. His party has cited the position of the Musahar community in Bihar as an example of what it describes as unequal distribution of reservation benefits.
The disagreement follows a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that permitted states to make sub-classifications within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for reservation, provided the exercise is supported by data and meets constitutional requirements. Separate opinions by some judges also raised the question of excluding a creamy layer among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, although that issue was not imposed as a binding national rule.
The Union government subsequently maintained before the Supreme Court that the creamy-layer concept, which applies to Other Backward Classes, should not be extended to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. That distinction has become central to the argument between Paswan and the Manjhi camp.
The quarrel has unfolded while reservation is again drawing political attention beyond Bihar. Demonstrators have gathered in Delhi demanding changes to caste-based quotas, including protests at Jantar Mantar and an unauthorised gathering at Connaught Place that led to detentions. Paswan has defended reservation during the broader agitation, describing it as a constitutional instrument intended to address entrenched social discrimination.
HAM, however, has stressed that reviewing distribution is different from questioning the legitimacy of reservation itself. Suman has said a review should determine which sections have benefited, which remain deprived and whether sub-categorisation could improve access for the most disadvantaged groups.
Both parties remain constituents of the NDA. Paswan serves as Union minister for food processing industries, while Manjhi leads HAM and holds the MSME portfolio. Their parties also have political stakes in Bihar, where caste representation and the allocation of quota benefits remain major electoral issues.
Paswan has also argued that economic advancement does not automatically erase caste discrimination, making income-based exclusion inappropriate for Scheduled Castes. Suman’s camp, by contrast, says the debate should focus on unequal access within reserved categories rather than abolition of quotas. The exchange has therefore centred on how reservation benefits are distributed, not on whether constitutional safeguards for historically disadvantaged communities should continue under the existing framework.
