In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional empowerment of states to make sub-classifications within the Scheduled Castes (SCs) for reservations. This ruling by a seven-judge constitution bench headed by the Chief Justice overturns the 2014 verdict, which had previously held that no sub-classification of SCs was permissible. This pivotal judgement marks a significant step forward in addressing the nuanced social and economic disparities within the SC community, promoting a more targeted and effective approach to affirmative action. The core of the judgement lies in its recognition of the socially heterogeneous nature of the SCs. Historical and empirical evidence demonstrates that the SC category encompasses various castes with varying degrees of social and economic backwardness. By acknowledging this diversity, the Supreme Court has provided states with the constitutional backing to identify and address the specific needs of the most disadvantaged sub-groups within the SCs. This move aligns with the broader principles of social justice and equity enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
The judgement articulates that the state, under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution, can make special provisions to address different degrees of social backwardness. This means that the States can now design and implement more nuanced reservation policies that cater to the specific needs of the most marginalised sub-groups within the SCs. The rationale behind this decision is to ensure that the benefits of affirmative action reach those who are most in need, thereby achieving the objective of substantive equality. The verdict underscores the importance of a rational principle for differentiation that has a direct nexus with the purpose of sub-classification. This ensures that any sub-classification is based on sound empirical data and serves the specific objective of addressing social and economic backwardness.
One of the critical aspects of this judgement is the requirement for states to collect quantifiable data on the inadequacy of representation of various sub-categories within the SCs. This data-driven approach ensures that policy decisions are grounded in objective evidence, thereby enhancing the effectiveness and legitimacy of affirmative action measures. The emphasis on effective representation, rather than merely quantitative representation, highlights the need to focus on the quality and impact of representation in public services and employment. The verdict also clarified that any decision to sub-classify SCs to provide additional quota benefits to a specific caste within the category could be subject to judicial review.
Justice Bela’s dissenting opinion, however, raises important points about the legislative competence of states in this matter. While this perspective underscores the need for a unified national framework, the majority opinion rightly points out that sub-classification within the SCs does not amount to altering the SC list but rather aims to ensure a more equitable distribution of reservation benefits.
The decision to empower states with the authority to subclassify SCs is not without its challenges. It necessitates robust mechanisms for data collection, analysis, and policy implementation. States must ensure transparency and accountability in this process to prevent potential misuse or arbitrary decision-making. Additionally, there must be a continuous review and assessment of the impact of these sub-classifications to ensure that they meet their intended objectives.
The Supreme Court’s judgement is a reaffirmation of the dynamic and evolving nature of social justice in India. It acknowledges that social and economic inequalities are not static and that policies must adapt to address the changing landscape of disadvantage. By allowing for sub-classification, the Court has paved the way for more tailored and effective affirmative action measures that can better serve the diverse needs of the SC community. It is a response to the complexities of social and economic inequalities, setting a precedent for a more nuanced understanding of social categories and the need for targeted interventions. As states move forward with implementing this judgement, they must do so with a commitment to transparency, accountability, and the ultimate goal of achieving a more just and equitable society.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
