Supreme Court Verdict on Caste Sub-Classification is a Landmark and Benchmark

Why in News?

• The recent Supreme Court ruling permitting the subdivision of reservation quotas for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) marks a significant shift in India's approach to social justice policies.
• This 7-judges bench decision has not only allowed state governments to subdivide these reservation quotas but also opened the door for identifying and excluding the creamy layer within SC and ST categories from the benefits of affirmative action.
• Therefore, it is crucial to examine the implications of this landmark judgement,its legal background, and its potential impact on social justice policies in India.

An Overview of the Constitutional Framework of Reservation and States’ Power

• The foundation of the reservation system in India lies in the Indian Constitution, specifically in Articles 15(4), 16(4), 46, and 341.
• Article 15(4) empowers the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes or for the SCs and STs.
• Article 16(4) allows the state to make provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens that, in the opinion of the state, is not adequately represented in the services under the state.
• Article 46 promotes the educational and economic interests of SCs, STs, and other weaker sections.
• Article 341 defines and provides the procedure for the classification of SCs.
  • According to Article 341(1), the President, after consultation with the Governor of a state, specifies the castes and classes as SCs in relation to that state or union territory.
  • Article 341(2) states that Parliament may by law include or exclude from the list of SCs specified in a notification under Article 341(1).

Historical Context and Legal Background of Recent Supreme Court’s Judgement

• The E V Chinnaiah Judgment (2004)
  • In 2004, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of sub-classification within the SC category in the E V Chinnaiah case.
  • The case arose from Andhra Pradesh, where the state government had created sub-quotas within the SC reservation to address the varying levels of disadvantage among different SC communities.
  • The five-member bench of the Supreme Court ruled against this move, holding that SCs are a homogeneous class and should not be subdivided.
  • The Court's ruling was based on a strict interpretation of Article 341, arguing that any sub-classification would violate the intent of the constitutional provision, which treated SCs as a single, unified group.
  • The judgement emphasised legal formalism, stating that allowing sub-categorisation would lead to administrative complexities and potential inequalities within the SC category.
• Criticisms of E V Chinnaiah Judgment
  • The E V Chinnaiah judgement faced significant criticism for its lack of consideration of the social realities faced by different SC communities.
  • Critics argued that the judgement failed to recognise the inherent inequalities within the SC category.
  • Historically, different SC communities have experienced varying degrees of social and educational disadvantage, often based on their traditional occupations and geographical locations.
  • For example, educational attainment among SC communities varies widely. Data from caste surveys in states like Bihar and Tamil Nadu reveal stark disparities.
  • In Bihar, higher education attainment among SC communities like Dhobis was significantly higher compared to the Musahar community.
  • In Tamil Nadu, the Arunthathiyars, despite constituting a significant portion of the SC population, were grossly underrepresented in government employment.
• The Path to the Davinder Singh Case
  • In response to the criticisms and the apparent need for a more nuanced approach to affirmative action, state governments continued to advocate for the ability to sub-classify SCs.
  • The State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh case emerged as a critical legal battle, representing the culmination of efforts to revisit and potentially overturn the E V Chinnaiah ruling.
  • In 2014, Chief Justice R.M. Lodha observed the need for a reconsideration of the sub-classification issue, and in 2020, a five-member bench referred the matter to a seven-member bench for final adjudication.
  • The legal discourse surrounding this issue emphasised the necessity of aligning constitutional interpretation with social realities and the principles of distributive justice.
• The Supreme Court’s Progressive Judgment
  • The 7-judges bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, delivered a landmark judgement that overturned the E V Chinnaiah ruling.
  • The Court held that state governments have the authority to sub-classify SCs to identify and provide more focused benefits to the most disadvantaged groups within the category.
  • This decision was rooted in the recognition that SCs are not a homogeneous group and that equitable affirmative action requires addressing internal disparities.
  • The judgement emphasised the principle of distributive justice, arguing that equal protection under the law must account for the varying degrees of disadvantage faced by different SC communities.
  • By prioritising substance over form, the Court demonstrated a commitment to social justice and the need for evidence-based policies.

Impact of Supreme Court’s Judgement on Social Policies in India

• Addressing Intra-Category Inequality
  • The judgement acknowledges that the SC and ST categories are not homogeneous and that there are significant disparities within these groups.
  • By allowing the subdivision of reservation quotas, the Court has paved the way for more granular and equitable distribution of benefits.
• Enhancing Policy Formulation and Implementation
  • By advocating for the subdivision of quotas and the potential exclusion of the “creamy layer,” the Court has emphasised the need for policies grounded in empirical data.
  • This approach can lead to more effective and targeted interventions.
• The Creamy Layer Concept and its Extension
  • Historically, the exclusion of the creamy layer, those members of the OBC category who are relatively better off, has been applied to ensure that the benefits of affirmative action reach the truly disadvantaged within the OBCs.
  • Extending this concept to SCs and STs is a contentious but potentially transformative idea.

Potential Challenges and Political Ramifications

• Despite its progressive stance, the judgement is likely to face challenges both legally and politically.
• Critics may argue that sub-classifying SCs and STs and excluding the creamy layer could dilute the affirmative-action regime.
• There may be concerns that these changes could create divisions within the SC and ST communities or be used for political manoeuvring.
• Politically, the judgement could be seen as aligning with the current regime's efforts to refine and perhaps limit the scope of affirmative action.
• Some political factions may interpret the decision as an attempt to fragment the Dalit community or weaken the overall impact of reservation policies.

Way Forward: Ensuring Equitable Implementation

• For the judgement to achieve its intended impact, it is crucial that state governments and policymakers adopt a transparent and evidence-based approach.
• This involves conducting comprehensive surveys and detailed socio-economic surveys to identify disparities within SC and ST communities.
• The government would need to establish clear and context-specific criteria for sub-classification and the exclusion of the creamy layer.
• Implementing robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms is crucial to assess the impact of these changes and make necessary adjustments.
• The government should ensure that affected communities are aware of these changes and have a voice in the implementation process.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court's recent judgement on subdividing reservation quotas for SCs and STs represents a pivotal step in refining India's social justice policies.
• By acknowledging the heterogeneous nature of these categories and advocating for data-driven, equitable affirmative action, the Court has paved the way for more nuanced and effective social justice measures.

As India continues to grapple with the complexities of caste-based inequalities, this judgement offers a robust framework for ensuring that the benefits of affirmative action reach those who need them the most. 

Q) What is the purpose of the reservation policy in India?

The reservation policy in India aims to promote social equality and uplift historically marginalised and underrepresented communities, such as Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). It provides these groups with reserved seats in educational institutions, government jobs, and legislatures to ensure they have access to opportunities and resources that have traditionally been denied to them.

Q) How has the reservation policy in India evolved over time?

The reservation policy in India has evolved through various amendments and judicial rulings to address the changing socio-economic landscape. Initially, reservations were introduced primarily for SCs and STs to correct historical injustices. Over time, the policy expanded to include OBCs following the Mandal Commission recommendations in the 1990s. Recent developments have also seen the introduction of reservations for economically weaker sections (EWS) within the general category, reflecting an ongoing effort to balance social justice with contemporary economic realities. 

Source:The Indian Express