“Ensuring Fairness: A Critical Examination of the Supreme Court Judgment on Scheduled Castes”

The recent Supreme Court judgment on the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes has sparked a nationwide debate. This discussion touches upon a sensitive issue: whether or not it is justified to create further divisions within a community that has already faced centuries of discrimination. However, before delving into the implications of the judgment, we must address some longstanding questions that remain unanswered.

Scheduled Castes are not responsible for the creation or perpetuation of castes and sub-castes within society. According to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, it was the Brahmins who were the originators of the caste system and its subdivisions among Hindus. The backwardness experienced by Scheduled Castes is not a result of their own actions but rather a consequence of systemic failures and inadequate governance over the past 77 years of independent India.

Governments in power have consistently failed to provide proper educational opportunities for Dalits, resulting in significant disparities in access to education. Similarly, insufficient efforts have been made to create meaningful employment opportunities for Dalits, hindering their economic advancement. Developmental measures necessary to promote equality among all citizens have also been lacking. The systemic neglect and insufficient policy implementation have contributed to the ongoing challenges faced by Scheduled Castes, and it is imperative to address these issues to ensure genuine equality and upliftment.

The Root of the Problem

A critical question is why certain sub-castes within the Scheduled Castes remain more disadvantaged than others. These disparities in socio-economic status among Scheduled Castes have been evident for years, yet the discourse around the recent judgment has largely ignored this crucial aspect. The experts and intellectuals engaged in debates about the sub-classification ruling often sidestep the more significant issues of systemic discrimination and marginalization that have perpetuated the backwardness of these sub-castes.

For instance, the conversation lacks any meaningful exploration of the reasons behind the continued neglect of certain sub-castes in education, employment, and landholding. Additionally, the grim reality of atrocities committed against Scheduled Castes over the past seventy years remains a topic rarely addressed in these discussions. Constitutional provisions, meant to safeguard the rights of Scheduled Castes, have often been poorly implemented, leaving these communities to fend for themselves. The neglect by both State and Central Governments, which has resulted in limited progress for many within these communities, is a fact supported by several studies. One such example is Nitin Kumar Bharti’s report, “Wealth Inequality, Class, and Caste in India, 1951-2012,” which underscores the deep-seated economic disparities among Scheduled Castes.

The Need for a Comprehensive Study

In the E.V. Chinnaiah case judgment dated November 11, 2004, the court stated:

“Relying on or on the basis of the purported experience that out of 59 castes specified in the Scheduled Castes for the State of Andhra Pradesh in the Presidential Order, it was held that as the State in discharge of its function or duty bound to provide for the upliftment of the educational and social interests of the Scheduled Castes who are most backward classes amongst the Scheduled Castes, the impugned legislation is valid as thereby it was perceived that the benefits of reservation had not been percolating to them equitably so as to rationalize the reservation meant for the Scheduled Castes.”

Despite this clear directive from the court to provide educational provisions to Scheduled Castes, 20 years have passed with little to no improvement in their educational status. This stagnation underscores the urgent need for proper measures and the creation of a comprehensive Reservation Act to ensure that the intended benefits reach all Scheduled Castes equitably.

Given the current scenario, there is an urgent need for the government to conduct a thorough study to identify the sub-castes among Scheduled Castes that are the most marginalized in today’s context. Without this foundational understanding, any policy intervention including sub-classification risks will end up being superficial and ineffective. A detailed report on the socio-economic status of these communities is essential to inform future actions, whether it involves affirmative action, targeted welfare schemes, or changes in reservation policies.

Sub-Classification: A Solution or a Distraction?

If sub-classification is to be pursued as a solution, it cannot be done without a comprehensive Reservation Act that specifies how reservations should be implemented across different sectors. Currently, there is no such legislation that outlines the framework for enforcing reservations, making the process arbitrary and inconsistent. While Articles 335 (Article 335 of the Constitution of India states that when making appointments to services and posts related to the Union or a State, the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be considered while also maintaining the efficiency of administration, The article also includes equity, justice, and merit, and takes care to ensure that it will not cause reverse discrimination) and 46 (Article 46 of the Indian Constitution states that the state should promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of society, especially the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). It also states that the state should protect these groups from social injustice and exploitation) of the Indian Constitution provide a constitutional basis for reservations, they do not offer a clear mechanism for comprehensive implementation. This lack of clarity extends to several critical areas, including how much of the reservation quota should apply to the public sector versus the private sector, and how reservations in promotions should be handled.

Furthermore, if the objective of sub-classification is to ensure adequate representation, it is essential to acknowledge the existing violations of constitutional principles in various sectors. The reality is that in many areas, whether public or private, representation of Scheduled Castes is minimal, with upper castes dominating the landscape. This disparity highlights a broader issue of systemic exclusion that a piecemeal approach to sub-classification is unlikely to resolve.

While the Supreme Court judgment on the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes raises important questions, it also serves as a reminder of the deeper, more complex issues that remain unaddressed. The backwardness of certain sub-castes, the unfulfilled constitutional rights in education, employment, and landholding, and the ongoing atrocities against these communities must be at the forefront of any discussion about sub-classification. Before moving forward, it is imperative that the government undertake a comprehensive study to identify the most marginalized sub-castes and develop a robust, all-encompassing Reservation Act that ensures equitable representation across all sectors. Only then can the goal of true social justice for Scheduled Castes be achieved.

A recent controversy has arisen regarding the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) draft guidelines, which proposed that any vacancy reserved for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) could be “declared unreserved” if sufficient candidates from these categories were not available. This proposal was widely perceived as an attempt to undermine the quota system in higher education institutions.

Following substantial backlash from various sections of society, the UGC removed this provision from the draft guidelines. This incident highlights a critical issue: without a comprehensive Act or well-defined guidelines governing reservations, the reservation system is vulnerable to significant changes and potential erosion.

The lack of a robust legislative framework for reservations can lead to arbitrary modifications and undermining of established quotas, which are essential for ensuring equal opportunities and addressing historical injustices. It is crucial to have a clear, comprehensive Act that safeguards the reservation system and prevents such manipulations, ensuring that the rights and opportunities of marginalized communities are protected.

Homogeneous or heterogeneous 

The Supreme Court raises significant points regarding the classification and treatment of Scheduled Castes (SCs). Specifically, point no. 51 of the judgment (The Scheduled Castes are not a homogenous class. Preferential treatment can be given to the most downtrodden of the class who are not adequately represented. Such a sub-classification is made to provide equality of opportunity, so as to achieve the purpose of reservation) addresses the idea that the Scheduled Castes, as per the Presidential List, are not frozen in time and that they are not a homogeneous group. The judgment suggests that the state laws can provide preferential treatment within the Scheduled Castes based on statistical data, which can then be used to allocate benefits more equitably.

However, the Supreme Court’s concerns highlight the lack of reference or empirical evidence in the judgment to support these claims, particularly in terms of the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the Scheduled Castes. You correctly point out that the classification of Scheduled Castes was historically rooted in the concept of untouchability and that this classification was solidified through detailed criteria in various censuses, particularly the 1911 and 1931 censuses. These criteria focused on social and religious practices, pollution taboos, and access to public services and spaces, which collectively identified the ‘Depressed Classes’ later termed as Scheduled Castes in the 1935 Act.

According to tests mentioned in 1911 Census

1. denied the supremacy of Brahmins Who Were Untouchables?
2. did not receive mantras from Brahmins or other recognized Hindu gurus
3. denied the authority of the Vedas
4. did not worship the great Hindu gods
5. were not served by “good” Brahmans
6. had no Brahman priests at all
7. had no access to the interior of the ordinary Hindu temple
8. caused pollution a. By Touch b. Within a certain Distance
9. buried their dead
10. ate beef and did not revere the cow

The final and conclusive enumeration of ‘untouchables’ was made in the 1931 census. The Census Commissioner imposed nine fresh tests, given the difficulty in arriving at enumeration of ‘Depressed classes’ (‘untouchables’). The nine tests are more elaborate, and the questions asked to enumerate untouchables were:

1. Whether the caste or class in question can be served by clean Brahmans or not.
2. Whether the caste or class in question can be served by the barbers, water-carriers, tailors etc., who serve the caste Hindus.
3. Whether the caste in question ‘pollutes’ a high-caste Hindu by contact or by proximity.
4. Whether the caste or class in question is one from whose hands a caste Hindu can take water.
5. Whether the caste or class in question is debarred from using public conveniences, such as, roads, ferries, wells or schools.
6. Whether the caste or class in question is debarred from the use of Hindu temples.
7. Whether in ordinary social intercourse, a well-educated member of the caste or class in question will be treated as an equal by high-caste men of the same educational qualifications.
8. Whether the caste or class in question is merely depressed on account of its own ignorance, illiteracy, or poverty, and but for that would be subject to no social disability.
9. Whether it is depressed on account of the occupation followed and whether but for that occupation, it would be subject to no social disability.

Given the historical basis for the classification, the argument that the Scheduled Castes are not a homogeneous group requires careful examination, particularly in light of the historical and anthropological data used to define and group these castes. The homogeneity of Scheduled Castes, as argue, was determined by a shared experience of social exclusion, discrimination, and untouchability, which was explicitly documented in colonial and post-colonial censuses and reports.

The nine tests referenced from the 1931 Census, which were used to identify ‘Depressed Classes,’ provide a robust framework for understanding how the Scheduled Castes were grouped together. These tests were not arbitrary but were based on observable and consistent forms of social exclusion and marginalization, further solidifying the argument that these groups were indeed homogeneous in terms of their socio-economic and religious status.

The judgment’s implication that the Scheduled Castes are not a homogeneous group could be seen as overlooking the historical and anthropological evidence that initially justified their classification. The sub-classification of Scheduled Castes, as proposed by the judgment, might need to take into account this historical context to avoid disrupting the foundational rationale behind the grouping of these castes.

In analysis or critique, it may be helpful to reference these historical criteria and the rationale behind the original classification of Scheduled Castes to argue for or against the judgment’s view on homogeneity. This could add a strong empirical basis to the position and highlight the importance of considering historical data when making decisions about the rights and benefits of marginalized communities.

Parliament to Discuss and Decide

The Supreme Court judgment, which allows states to discuss and decide the reservation policy for Scheduled Castes within their jurisdiction, appears to contravene the foundational principles laid out by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and the framers of the Indian Constitution. Dr. Ambedkar, while presenting the draft Articles 300A and 300B on 17th September 1949, clearly emphasized that the authority to include or exclude any caste, race, or tribe from the Scheduled Castes list must rest solely with Parliament, not the states. The intent was to prevent the influence of local political factors and ensure that such decisions are made at the central level, reflecting a national consensus rather than regional interests.

Dr. Ambedkar’s foresight recognized the potential dangers of allowing states to unilaterally alter the status of Scheduled Castes, which could lead to political manipulation and injustice. This concern was echoed by Shri V.I. Muniswami Pillai, who supported the amendment for similar reasons, highlighting the risks of state-level interference in the classification of Scheduled Castes. Furthermore, Dr. Ambedkar, during the debate on the Untouchability Offence Bill in 1954, insisted that laws affecting the Scheduled Castes, including those related to reservations and their sub-classification, should be centrally administered. He stressed that such matters are of national importance and must be decided by Parliament, not by individual state assemblies.

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar during Constituent Assembly on 17th September 1949, when Dr. B.R. Ambedkar moved two new draft Articles being Articles 300A and 300B, which read thus: “300A-Scheduled Castes (1) The President may, after consultation with the Governor or Ruler of a State, by public notification specify the castes, races or tribes or Scheduled Castes parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes, which shall for purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State. 40 (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued by the President under clause (1) of this article any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. While moving the said new draft Articles, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar stated thus:

“The object of these two articles, as I stated, was to eliminate the, necessity of burdening the Constitution with long lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is now proposed that the President, in consultation with the Governor or Ruler of a State should have, the power to issue a general notification in the Gazette specifying all the Castes and tribes or groups thereof deemed to be Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of the privileges which have been defined for them in the Constitution. The only limitation that has been imposed is this : that once a notification has been issued by the President, which, undoubtedly, he will be issuing in consultation with and on the advice of the Government of each State, thereafter, if any elimination was to be made from the List so notified or any addition was to be made, that must be made by Parliament and not by the President.

The object is to eliminate any kind of political factors having a play in the matter of the disturbance in the Schedule so published by the President.” Shri V.I.Muniswami Pillai, given on the same day i.e. 17th September 1949 in support of the amendment, which reads as under: “Sir, I am grateful to the Drafting Committee and also to the Chairman of that Committee for making the second portion of it very clear, that in future, after the declaration by the President as to who will be the Scheduled Castes, and when there is need for including any other class or to exclude, anybody or any community from the list of Scheduled Castes that must be by the word of Parliament.

I feel grateful to him for bringing in this clause, because I know, as a matter of fact, when Harijans behave independently or asserting their right on some matters, the Ministers in some Provinces not only take note and action against those members, but they bring the community to which that particular individual belongs; and thereby not only the individual, but also the community that comes under that category of Scheduled Castes are harassed. By this provision, I think the danger is removed.” these statements presumed the danger of the situations in states so that the deciding discussions should be held in the house of parliament better than state interests in assemblies.

During the debate on Untouchability Offences Bill 1954, Dr.B.R Ambedkar said that “I claim that this is a Central law although it does not fall in List I of the Seventh Schedule. The provisions contained in article 35 are quite clear. It has been stated in article 35 that any law to be made for inflicting punishment for any infringement of a law made in pursuance of article 17 shall be by Parliament and not by the State. Those are the very express words. Therefore there can be no doubt in my mind that this law will have to be by virtue of the Constitution administered by the Centre and not by the States”. As the importance of the Bill was much anticipated, Ambedkar insisted it to be the Central issue to decide in the same grounds, when it comes to Reservations or the Sub Classification of Scheduled castes should be discussed in the house of parliament not in respective state assemblies to decide.

In light of these historical statements, the Supreme Court’s judgment, which allows states to independently decide on reservation policies, seems to overlook the constitutional safeguard envisioned by Dr. Ambedkar and the Constituent Assembly. The consistent emphasis on central authority in matters concerning the Scheduled Castes underscores the importance of keeping these discussions within the Parliament, ensuring uniformity and protection from regional biases.

In certain states, political dynamics are often influenced by disputes between ruling and opposition parties that target specific sub-castes within the Scheduled Castes. These disputes play a significant role in shaping debates on the distribution of benefits to Scheduled Castes, leading to biased outcomes driven by local political interests. The same concerns apply to reservation policies. Given that these political dynamics could disproportionately affect certain sub-castes, it is imperative that decisions on such critical issues be made in the Parliament, not at the state level or even by the President alone.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s vision was clear: matters of such national importance, particularly those related to Scheduled Castes, must be deliberated upon by the Parliament to ensure a fair and uniform approach across the country. This ensures that local political interests do not undermine the rights and protections intended for the entire community. Only through comprehensive discussions in Parliament can we safeguard the integrity and effectiveness of policies designed to uplift the Scheduled Castes as a whole.

Article 35 of the Constitution of India gives Parliament the power to make laws that protect and promote the fundamental rights of the people. These laws can take the form of new laws, amendments to existing laws, or the repeal of outdated laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution. The primary goal is to ensure that the laws are in line with constitutional principles and do not infringe on citizens’ rights. As the reservations and Sub Classification are the fundamental and foremost important laws to be made, that shall be discussed and debated in the house of Parliament.

Inequalities Among Scheduled castes

The recent judgment, which suggests that there is no equality among the sub-castes within the Scheduled Castes, fails to recognize that such inequalities exist across all castes, including the so-called upper castes. This cannot be used as a justification to claim that Scheduled Castes are not a homogeneous group. The focus on intra-group disparities overlooks the broader reality of the socio-economic conditions faced by Scheduled Castes as a whole.

Experts and commentators who are engaged in debates about disputes among sub-castes should shift their attention to the overall situation of Scheduled Castes in the country. The more pressing issues are how Scheduled Castes continue to face systemic exclusion, discrimination, and lack of opportunities, and how atrocities against them have been on the rise over the past 70 years. The persistent marginalization and violence faced by Scheduled Castes underscore the need to address their collective condition rather than fragmenting their identity based on internal differences. The discussion should remain centered on the larger struggle for equality, dignity, and justice for all Scheduled Castes.

Political Interest

The recent judgment on reservations appears to align closely with the political narrative of the ruling party, raising concerns about potential political motives behind it. The judgment references Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s letter from 27th June 1961, where he cautioned against reservations based on communal and caste lines, warning that such policies could make India “second rate or third rate.” Nehru’s statement that “this way lies not only folly, but disaster” and his emphasis on efficiency over reservations for backward groups have been echoed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Parliament.

The similarity between the Prime Minister’s statements and the language used in the judgment suggests a possible influence of the ruling party’s political interests on the court’s decision. Such alignment raises questions about the impartiality of the judgment, especially in light of the broader debate on the role of reservations in addressing historical injustices and ensuring social equity for Scheduled Castes.

Despite sub-classification, it is of utmost necessity that we also look into the following:

1. Scheduled castes Not Responsible: None of the Scheduled Castes are responsible for their own backwardness or the atrocities committed against them over the past 77 years. The systemic failures and lack of proper support from successive governments have perpetuated their marginalization.
2. Comprehensive Reservation Act: If sub-classification is to be implemented, it should be done through a comprehensive Reservation Act with clear rules and guidelines for implementation.
3. Central Responsibility for Reservation Policy: The total responsibility for sub-classification or any other reservation policy related to Scheduled Castes should rest with the central government, with proper discussions conducted in the house of Parliament.
4. All sub-castes within the Scheduled Castes must be provided with the necessary facilities and support to ensure their collective upliftment and development. Equal access to resources and opportunities is essential to address the disparities and promote genuine progress for all.
5. Political motive: There appears to be a political motive behind this judgment, as the statements quoted by the judges align closely with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s remarks from six months ago, both referencing Pandit Nehru’s 1961 letter on reservations. This striking similarity raises concerns about potential influence and coordination between the judiciary and the ruling party’s political narrative.
6. Inclusive Reservation Policy Act: The Reservation Policy Act should be comprehensive, covering how reservations are applied in both public and private sectors, along with constitutional safeguards to protect the integrity of the act.
7. State Governments’ Role: State governments should not be allowed to decide reservation policies based on their political interests.
8. Constructive Debate: Experts, Dalit leaders, and democrats should focus on strategies for the development of Scheduled Castes as a whole, rather than exacerbating disputes among sub-castes.
9. Judicial Accountability: Courts and judges should reflect on how the judiciary has addressed the issues of Scheduled Castes over the past 70 years, particularly regarding the failure to convict those accused of atrocities and the dilution of constitutional safeguards meant to protect Scheduled Castes in various judgments over time.

Mallepalli Laxmaiah
(Center for Dalit Studies)