Why in the News?

The issue is in the news because the Union Government has assured that Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes will be enumerated in the 2027 Census, raising fresh demands for a separate constitutional classification. Community leaders argue that despite past commissions and welfare schemes, these groups remain undercounted, under-recognised, and excluded from effective benefits.

What are Denotified Tribes (DNTs)?

DNTs are communities originally labeled “born criminal” under the British-era Criminal Tribes Act of 1871, repealed in 1952, while Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic tribes (NT/SNT) move frequently for livelihood. Comprising roughly 10% of India’s population (~150 DNTs, 500+ NTs), these marginalized groups face stigma, lack of land rights.

Key Aspects of DNT and Nomadic Tribes

1. Definition & History: Denotified tribes (also known as Vimukta Jati) were branded criminals by the British; after 1952, they were “denotified” but often subjected to the Habitual Offenders Act. Nomadic tribes move regularly, while semi-nomadic tribes have less frequent, often seasonal, movement patterns.
2. Population & Diversity: Approximately 10% of India’s population belongs to these groups. The Renke Commission (2005) estimated their population at 10.74 crore.
3. Marginalization: Due to historical stigma and lack of permanent settlement, these communities often lack access to education, healthcare, and land ownership.
4. Current Status & Welfare: The Development and Welfare Board for De-notified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Communities (DWBDNC) was established in 2019 to provide support and welfare.
5. Initiatives: There is an ongoing push for inclusion in the 2027 Census for better representation and targeted welfare, following recommendations from the Idate Commission (2018).
6. Examples: Groups include the Van Gujjars, Lambadis, and Gujjar-Bakarwals. 

Key Commissions and Boards

1. National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (NCDNT)
2. Idate Commission: Submitted a report in 2018 identifying 1,262 communities.
3. Development and Welfare Board for De-notified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Communities (DWBDNC): Established in 2019 for the welfare of these communities

How did colonial classification shape present governance challenges?

1. Criminal Tribes Act, 1871: Legally notified certain communities as “addicted to crime,” enabling surveillance, forced registration, and restricted movement. Institutionalised stigma and collective punishment.
2. Administrative Control Mechanisms: Enabled police monitoring and habitual offender tagging. Replaced community identity with criminal identity.
3. Post-Independence Repeal (1952): Repeal of CTA did not remove stigma; many States enacted Habitual Offenders Acts, continuing surveillance under new terminology.
4. Long-term Consequence: Absence of reparative constitutional recognition despite historical state-imposed criminalisation.

Why has post-independence classification failed to ensure equitable inclusion?

1. Fragmented Categorisation: DNTs distributed across SC, ST, OBC, and unreserved lists; prevents uniform access to benefits.
2. Lack of Separate Enumeration: No exclusive census category; absence of accurate demographic data.
3. Certification Gaps: Limited issuance of DNT certificates across States; administrative barriers restrict welfare access.
4. Policy Dilution: Subsumption under broader OBC or SC lists reduces visibility and competition within quota frameworks.

What did the Idate Commission recommend and how has implementation fared?

1. National Commission for DNTs (2015-2018): Recommended identification of 1,200+ communities; estimated population above 10 crore.
2. Separate Category Proposal: Suggested permanent institutional mechanism for DNT welfare.
3. Institutional Integration: Recommended targeted development schemes and simplified certification.
4. Implementation Deficit: No constitutional amendment; recommendations remain partially operationalised.

Does the SEED Scheme address structural exclusion effectively?

1. Scheme for Economic Empowerment of DNTs (SEED): Launched by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment for livelihood, education, housing, and health support.
2. Digital Identification Requirement: Beneficiaries must provide caste certificates; excludes those lacking documentation.
3. Low Financial Utilisation: Only a fraction of ₹200 crore reportedly spent over five years.
4. Structural Limitation: Welfare scheme without constitutional backing limits transformative impact.

Would a separate constitutional classification strengthen governance accountability?

1. Equity Principle: Aligns with redistributive justice under Articles 14, 15(4), and 16(4).
2. Administrative Clarity: Enables uniform certification, enumeration, and targeted budgeting.
3. Political Representation: Could ensure legislative and policy voice similar to SC/ST frameworks.
4. Institutional Resistance: Government has indicated no proposal for separate classification; concerns over quota expansion and administrative complexity.

How does the issue test constitutional morality and social justice commitments?

1. Historical Reparative Justice: Addresses state-imposed criminalisation during colonial rule.
2. Substantive Equality: Moves beyond formal equality to address structural stigma.
3. Federal Coordination: Requires Centre-State harmonisation in certification and welfare delivery.
4. Accountability Deficit: Lack of monitoring mechanisms for SEED utilisation reflects weak institutional oversight.

Conclusion

The question of a separate classification for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes ultimately tests India’s commitment to substantive equality and reparative justice. Enumeration in Census 2027 may improve visibility, but without institutional clarity, uniform certification, and stronger accountability in welfare delivery, historical stigma may persist in administrative form. A balanced approach combining accurate data, streamlined recognition, and targeted policy design is essential to translate constitutional promises into lived inclusion.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2023] “Development and welfare schemes for the vulnerable, by its nature, are discriminatory in approach.” Do you agree? Give reasons for your answer.

Linkage: This PYQ links to DNTs as targeted welfare for historically criminalised communities requires differential treatment to achieve substantive equality. It also helps evaluate whether schemes like SEED correct structural exclusion or remain limited in impact due to weak implementation.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now