Caste calculus

Apex court recognises disparities within Schedule Castes

The Supreme Court has added a new and mostly positive dimension to the discourse over affirmative action with its ruling permitting sub-classification within Scheduled Castes for reservation in educational institutions and government employment. The 6:1 ruling last week, comprising six opinions with five in favour of sub-classification, overturns a 20-year-old decision by a five-judge Bench (E V Chinnaiah versus State of Andhra Pradesh) that had ruled that Scheduled Castes were homogeneous categories. The latest judgment reverses the 2004 observation by a five-judge Bench that the powers to classify groups as Scheduled Castes lay only with the President under Article 341 of the Constitution; further, as Scheduled Castes were a homogeneous group, any sub-classification would violate the right to equality under Article 14. In the judgment written for himself and Justice Manoj Misra, Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud argued that the list of Scheduled Castes specified by the President was “legal fiction” inasmuch as this category did not exist before the Constitution came into force and was created to extend benefits to communities on the list. As such, the ruling argued, this concept cannot assume the lack of internal differences within Scheduled Castes.
 

By recognising that some constituents of Scheduled Castes are more backward or disadvantaged than others in terms of access to jobs and educational seats within overall quota (15 per cent), the Supreme Court has built on a 1975 notification by the Punjab government that accorded preference to two backward communities, Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikhs, for reservation. This notification was struck down after the Chinnaiah ruling. But this ruling is unlikely to be the last word on the issue; future legal contestation over the definition of sub-groups can be expected. The Supreme Court has stated states must demonstrate a need for wider protection, bring empirical evidence, and have a “reasonable” rationale for classifying sub-groups. It is perhaps regrettable that the concept of the “creamy layer”, which excludes the wealthier and more advanced groups among the Other Backward Classes (OBCs), could not be incorporated as an enforceable decree for Scheduled Castes in this ruling. It would have brought more clarity to the issue. Though it was not one of the questions before the Bench, it was a principle raised by Justice B R Gavai, the only Scheduled Caste judge on the Bench, to which the four other concurring rulings agreed.
 

The broad principle of the ruling is unexceptionable but implementing it is likely to be troublesome. First, compiling empirical evidence on the socioeconomic conditions of Scheduled Caste sub-groups is guaranteed to be a fraught exercise, both politically and socially, of competing interests. Having been vested with consequential powers by the Supreme Court, the principal challenge for states will lie in balancing local needs with overall social progress. The recent campaigns by powerful Jats, Marathas and Patels for OBC status and benefits, and tensions in Manipur over the recognition of Meitei community as Scheduled Tribe should serve as cautionary examples.