A guest contributor’s take on the Indian Supreme Court’s judgment on Sub-Classification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Introduction
The reservation system in India is a form of affirmative action designed to uplift historically marginalised groups, primarily Scheduled Castes (“SCs”), Scheduled Tribes (“STs”), and Other Backward Classes (“OBCs”). The system is enshrined in the Indian Constitution and aims to provide these groups with better access to education, employment, and political representation.
Recently, in a landmark judgment on August 1, 2024, the Indian Supreme Court paved the way for a more nuanced approach to reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). The seven-judge Constitution bench, in a 6:1 ruling, has permitted states to sub-classify these communities to provide better support for the most disadvantaged groups within them in order to make reservations fairer and just for those who really need it.
This decision overturns the apex court’s previous stance in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004), where it had held that SCs and STs form a homogeneous group that cannot be divided further. The current judgment acknowledges the diversity within these communities and the need for targeted interventions to address systemic discrimination.
The Rationale Behind Sub-Classification
The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasises the importance of substantive equality over formal equality. While formal equality treats everyone the same regardless of their circumstances, substantive equality seeks to address these differences to achieve actual fairness. By allowing sub-classification, the judgment aims to ensure that reservation benefits reach those who are truly disadvantaged and in need of support.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his opinion, highlighted the historical evidence suggesting that SCs are not a homogeneous class. He argued that sub-classification does not violate the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution or Article 341, which empowers the President to identify and notify SCs.
Concerns and Criticisms
However, the judgment has also raised concerns among some legal scholars and dissenting voices. Justice Bela Trivedi, in her lone dissenting opinion, contended that the power to classify castes is constitutionally reserved for the President, and states may lack the competence to implement such classifications effectively.
Critics argue that allowing sub-classification could lead to political manipulation and micro-classification, undermining the original intent of reservations. There are fears that states might prioritise certain sub-groups for political gain rather than genuine upliftment.
Some scholars have also pointed out that reservations were not conceptualised as an instrument for economic upliftment but rather as a remedial measure for historical discrimination and stigmatisation. The introduction of the “creamy layer” principle, which excludes wealthier individuals within SC and ST categories from reservation benefits, may further complicate this debate.
The Way Forward
The Supreme Court’s judgment presents both opportunities and challenges for the representation of marginalised communities in India. While it acknowledges the diversity within SCs and STs and the need for targeted interventions, it also raises questions about implementation, potential misuse, and the preservation of unity among these groups.
As states begin to implement sub-classification, it will be crucial to ensure that the process is based on empirical data and historical evidence rather than arbitrary or political reasons. The Supreme Court has clarified that 100% reservation for any sub-class is not permissible, and state decisions on sub-classification are subject to judicial review to prevent misuse.
Moreover, the discourse surrounding sub-classification must engage with the lived experiences of marginalised communities and address their concerns regarding fragmentation and competition for limited resources. It is essential to foster an inclusive dialogue that recognises the historical injustices faced by SCs and STs while also addressing the concerns of the general community regarding merit and equity.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s verdict on sub-classification of SCs and STs represents a significant development in the ongoing quest for social justice in India. By acknowledging the diversity within these communities and the need for targeted interventions, the judgment seeks to enhance the effectiveness of affirmative action policies.
However, the success of this judgment will depend on its implementation and the ability of stakeholders to navigate the complexities that may arise from sub-classification. As the nation embarks on this new chapter, it is crucial to engage in thoughtful and inclusive dialogue, drawing upon empirical evidence, legal expertise, and the perspectives of marginalised communities. Only then can we truly fulfil the promise of substantive equality and build a more just and equitable society.
Rishabh Sharma is a law student at Gujarat National Law University in India, and a Guest Contributor to the LWOB UCL Blog.
