The Indian Supreme Court recently ruled that states can sub-classify the list of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) to offer preferential treatment to the weakest among them. The decision overrules a 2005 ruling and challenges the existing reservation system, which has reportedly resulted in inequalities among reserved castes.
Overruling of Previous Judgment
In 2005, a five-judge bench ruled in E V Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh and Others that state governments lacked the power to create sub-categories of SCs for reservation purposes. The recent reversal of this decision by a bench of equal strength was subsequently referred to a 7-judge bench.
The new judgment pertains to the constitutional validity of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which apportions half of the state’s reserved Scheduled Castes seats to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs.
Inequalities Within the Reservation System
The ruling suggests that the current reservation system has birthed inequalities within the reserved castes. The court argued that certain castes were appropriating the benefits of reservation, leading to internal “caste struggle”. Extending Article 14 rights to everyone guarantees “equality before the law” and “equal protection of law”.
Extension of Reservation
Reservation was not intended to be permanent. Article 334 originally necessitated the cessation of elected seats reservation in 1960, but extensions have pushed this to 2030 under the 104th Amendment. Denying sub-classification would undermine the right to equality by treating unequal sections as equal.
Inequality Within Scheduled Castes
Despite reservation, some SCs remain grossly underrepresented. To address this, reports recommend special quotas and sub-divisions. The 1997 Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission even advised excluding the Creamy layer of Scheduled Castes from reservation benefits.
Special Quotas in Different States
States like Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, and Bihar have introduced special quotas for highly vulnerable Dalits. In 2007, Bihar established the Mahadalit Commission to identify underrepresented castes, while Tamil Nadu allotted a 3% quota within the SC quota to the Arundhatiyar caste.
Power of the State for Reservation
Articles 15(4) and 16(4), alongside Articles 341(1) and 342(1), empower states to grant reservation benefits to SCs and STs. These articles permit the creation of special arrangements promoting the interests and welfare of socially and educationally backward classes.
Previous Legal Context
In the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 case, the Supreme Court allowed the state to categorize backward classes as backward and more backward. However, in the E V Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh and Others 2005 and M.Nagaraj & Others vs Union Of India, 2006 cases, the Supreme Court ruled that only the President has the power to notify the inclusion or exclusion of a caste as a Scheduled Caste, with states unable to modify the list.
Recent Developments
In Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta, 2018, the Supreme Court indicated the government need not collect quantifiable data to show backwardness of public employees belonging to the SC/STs for reservations in promotions. It further observed that certain groups or subgroups had overcome their untouchability or backwardness, coming out of the ‘creamy layer’.
Way Forward
This judgement could support the establishment of a just society by ensuring the most disadvantaged sections receive the benefits of reservation. Dr B.R. Ambedkar famously described Indian society as an ascending scale of reverence and descending scale of contempt, forming a gradation of castes.
[Source: Indian Express]