August 22, 2024
📰 FEATURE STORY
Is the Supreme Court’s judgment on SC/ST subclassification right?
Reservations for backward castes and communities have always been a point of contention in India. Some see it as a necessity, given India’s diverse demographic makeup. Others are against it due to various reasons. One thing’s for sure – it’s a complicated matter debated among lawmakers and in the courts for decades.
The most recent verdict of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upholding the legality of the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) for reservations has resulted in a cavalcade of reactions. Was the Bench right in upholding it?
Context
The entire premise of the reservation system in India was to correct historical injustices and promote fairness among disadvantaged communities. For those who didn’t have the resources and access, reservations provided a path to education and employment.
Contemporary debate on reservations has evolved and turned inwards to some extent. It has gone from reserved versus non-reserved to one within communities.
Some states like Bihar, Punjab, and Tamil Nadu tried bringing in reservation laws at the state level to sub-categorise SCs and have a separate group for these subcategories under the broader SC umbrella. Those plans didn’t get too far since the matter was yet to play out in the Supreme Court.
In 1996, the Andhra Pradesh government formed a one-man commission under Justice Ramachandra Raju that recommended sub-categorisation based on evidence that some communities were more backward and had fewer opportunities and representation. Implementing it wasn’t easy, and it went to the Supreme Court. In 2004, the court said the state couldn’t unilaterally sub-categorise communities, and per the Constitution, only Parliament had that power.
The government consulted with the Law Ministry in 2005, and the Attorney-General of India said sub-categorisation could be allowed if there was “unimpeachable evidence to indicate a necessity”. While the Centre formed a National Commission to look into it, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) said a constitutional amendment wasn’t necessary. They cited Article 16(4) of the Constitution, which allowed states to make special laws for under-represented backward groups.
A judgment by a five-judge bench in 2020, which heard challenges to Punjab trying to sub-categorise, said it doesn’t amount to tinkering and states could do it. It was the opposite of what the Court said in 2004. This judgment was referred to a larger Bench.
The most recent Supreme Court judgment has also reopened the Pandora’s box of the “creamy layer”. Since reservation isn’t just about poverty eradication but a step toward social justice and equality, the creamy layer concept, according to some, needs to be revised. Has the apex court delivered on that, or has it erred on sub-categorisation?
VIEW: The Court got it right
Reservation is a complex, multi-pronged tool that needs to be cautiously formulated and applied. The extension of reservations for SCs and STs hasn’t uniformly benefitted all sub-castes. The court’s verdict is the successful culmination of people’s struggle. It comes at a time when upward political and social mobilisation faces challenges.
The impact of this judgment will be far-reaching and significant. It will empower marginalised communities by giving them the legal backing to demand their fair share of political representation, education and employment. It gives them a platform to voice their needs and advocate for their rights. Some states have shown the way. Bihar implemented the Mahadalit category in 2007. In Tamil Nadu, sub-categorisation was introduced for the Arunthathiyars in 2009.
Other states like Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh have demanded sub-categorisation, and they now have the chance to act on it. SCs and STs don’t constitute a homogenous group. Hence, sub-categorisation would help reallocate resources according to the greater needs of the people. Sub-classification is one of the means to achieve substantive equality, according to Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice Misra.
Even though the framers of the Constitution didn’t envision reservations as a permanent concept, it has helped provide opportunities and resources to the most backward classes so they can be on relatively equal footing with everyone else.
COUNTERVIEW: It gets murky
Some have argued that the Court’s verdict on sub-categorisation is deeply flawed, could dilute reservations, and could pave the way for its erasure. The reality is, for most Dalits, reservations haven’t benefitted them. They don’t have the luxury of educating themselves enough to help. A hypothetical reservation quota won’t change their lives in any meaningful way.
The Court’s verdict begs the question – where’s the data to back up the concept of sub-categorisation? There needs to be caste-based census and employment data within sub-caste groups. While there’s some evidence that upwardly mobile subcaste groups have dominated, without proper evaluation, we won’t know if sub-categorisation will actually be useful.
The Court’s observations on differences among SC communities from the standpoint of their social and educational backwardness aren’t exactly correct. There’s no hard data to establish the social-educational differences. Further analysis is necessary to know whether upward mobility among caste groups has eradicated caste biases. Take untouchability, for example. It’s a harsh reality today. There’s not much data on which subcastes of Dalit communities are vulnerable to caste-based violence.
Untouchability continues today despite reservations. While there are differences in mobility within SC and ST communities, untouchability and violence remain homogenous. The central question is whether caste-based reservation was introduced to address differential mobility or if it was about representation and social justice. It’s judicial overreach for the Court to read Article 335 of the Constitution and Article 16(4) to talk about sub-categorisation. The Constitution doesn’t have a provision for sub-categorisation based on differential mobility of castes.
Reference Links:
- SC Sub-Quota Verdict: Revisiting the Long-Drawn Struggle for Reservation Justice – The Wire
- Sub-categorisation of Scheduled Castes: Law sought against SC-ST creamy layer ruling – The Telegraph
- The Debate of Sub-Categorization within SC/ST: A Short Note – The Society For Constitutional Law Discussion
- Sub-categorisation debate: Unanswered questions – Deccan Herald
- Slicing the Pie: SC/ST Sub-Categorisation and Questions After the Supreme Court Judgment – The Wire
- Subcategorisation verdict: India needs a reservation model solving the problem of caste, not perpetuating it – The Leaflet
What is your opinion on this?
(Only subscribers can participate in polls)
a) The Supreme Court’s judgment on SC/ST subclassification is right.
b) The Supreme Court’s judgment on SC/ST subclassification is not right.
Previous poll’s results:
- Modi’s ‘75,000 new medical college seats’ proposal is the right approach: 85.7% 🏆
- Modi’s ‘75,000 new medical college seats’ proposal is the wrong approach: 14.3%
🕵️ BEYOND ECHO CHAMBERS
For the Right:
How the government undercut TISS over the past decade
For the Left:
China isn’t mocking India as usual. It’s praising Modi’s Russia-West balancing act instead