Why did the Supreme Court reverse its own 20-year-old decision in the SC-ST reservation case?

Why did the Supreme Court reverse its own 20-year-old decision in the SC-ST reservation case?

On Thursday, August 1, the Supreme Court gave a major verdict and approved the sub-categorization of SC-ST group for reservation. A bench of 7 judges headed by CJI Chandrachud gave this verdict by 6:1. This decision is important for those states which want to give comprehensive protection to some castes (including SC-ST) which have very less representation despite reservation compared to the so-called major Scheduled Castes.

With this decision, the Supreme Court overturned its 20-year-old decision in which the court had held that sub-categorization among the Scheduled Castes for the purpose of reservation would violate the right to equality and had said that the SC list should be considered as a single, homogenous group (i.e. in which there is no difference). Now after the latest decision of the Supreme Court, questions have started being raised on it by the pro-reservation groups.

How did this issue arise?

The Punjab government had issued a policy in 1975 under which the 25% reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) was divided into two categories – one for the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities, which were considered the most backward, and the other for the rest of the SC communities. This policy remained in force for nearly 30 years.

The matter became complicated when the Supreme Court ruled against a similar reservation policy in Andhra Pradesh in 2004. In the 2004 case of E.V. Chinnaiya vs State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that sub-categorisation of SCs violated the right to equality because it treated different SC castes unequally, even though they were all recognised for their historical discrimination. The judgment emphasised that SCs should be treated as a single group for reservation.

The Supreme Court then also said that Article 341 of the Constitution gives the President the power to notify SC castes, and states cannot change or sub-categorize this list. Subsequently, in 2006, the Punjab and Haryana High Court also declared the 1975 policy of the Punjab government invalid.

In October 2006, the Punjab government tried to reinstate its reservation policy in favour of the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities by passing a new law. The Punjab and Haryana High Court struck it down again in 2010. The Punjab government then appealed to the Supreme Court.

In 2014, in Davinder Singh vs State of Punjab, the Supreme Court reviewed whether its 2004 verdict, which rejected the sub-classification of SCs, needed to be reconsidered. It was referred to a five-judge Constitution bench.

In 2020, a bench led by Justice Arun Mishra decided that the 2004 judgment needed to be reconsidered. The court held that SCs are not a homogenous group and also acknowledged the concept of ‘creamy layer’ which limits benefits based on income. In the landmark 2018 judgment in Jarnail Singh vs Laxmi Narayan Gupta, the Supreme Court had upheld the “creamy layer” within SCs, which was first applied to SC promotions in 2018.

The states also argued that their sub-categorisation was based on the creamy layer approach which favoured the most disadvantaged within the SC. Since Davinder Singh’s bench also had five judges, a larger bench of seven judges was now to review the issue.

On February 8, 2024, a seven-judge bench led by CJI Chandrachud reserved its verdict on the matter, considering whether not allowing sub-categorisation would allow more influential or empowered SCs within their own category to monopolise benefits. The court also examined a 2004 judgment that said only the President can decide the SC communities eligible for reservation and states cannot change the list.

What did the Supreme Court say in the judgment?

Apart from CJI Chandrachud, the seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprised Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. Justice Bela Trivedi disagreed with the decision to sub-categorize but the Supreme Court gave its verdict by 6:1.

In its majority verdict, the bench said, “Systemic discrimination against people belonging to SC/ST community often hinders their progress. Article 14 allows sub-categorisation of castes. The court must assess whether a class is homogenous or not, and if not, it can be further categorised.”

The Supreme Court said that historical and social evidence clearly indicates that SC/ST are not a homogeneous group. Therefore, sub-categorization of SC/ST by the states does not violate Article 341, which gives the President the right to prepare the SC/ST list.

While delivering the verdict, Justice B.R. Gavai said, “The government should formulate a policy to identify the creamy layer among the SC/ST community and exclude them from the ambit of affirmative action. This is the only way to achieve true equality.”

Expressing her dissent, Justice Bela Trivedi said, “Sub-categorisation of SCs/STs by the states is contrary to Article 341 of the Constitution which empowers the President to prepare a list of SCs/STs. Article 341 was enacted to prevent politics in the list of SCs/STs. Castes can be included or excluded from the President’s list only with the help of a law passed by Parliament. Sub-categorisation would be tantamount to tampering with this list. Any preferential treatment for a sub-category within it would deprive other sections of the same category of benefits.”

Apart from Valmiki and Mazhabi Sikhs in Punjab and Madigas in Andhra Pradesh, Paswans in Bihar, Jatavs in Uttar Pradesh and Arundhatiars in Tamil Nadu will also be affected by this sub-categorisation decision.

What is the reaction of people?

As soon as this decision came, both the pro-reservation and anti-reservation groups started writing about it on social media. While the anti-reservation group called this decision praiseworthy, the pro-reservation group wrote against it.

Delhi University professor Dr Rattan Lal raised the issue of EWS reservation amid SC-ST reservation.

Dalit poet Meena Kandasamy said on this decision of the Supreme Court that the creamiest of the cream judges of the Indian judiciary gave the verdict against reservation for an imaginary creamy layer in SC/ST reservation.

RJD MP Manoj Jha wrote on this decision that sometimes a special day of a year becomes a symbol of resistance and liberation forever and perhaps 2 April 2018 played the same role.

Delhi University research scholar Saundarya told India Today Hindi that there was no need for this decision. She said, “If we talk about sub-categorization on economic basis, then what about those people who are victims of discrimination despite being economically prosperous, that too just because they come from the so-called lower castes. I believe that at the social level the Scheduled Castes are not a homogeneous group, but while facing discrimination, the same feeling arises among all the castes.”

He further said that it is absolutely correct that the benefit of reservation has not reached all communities of scheduled castes equally but the reason for this is that they have not been provided reservation according to their population. Therefore, it is necessary to know the actual population of all castes by conducting caste census and the government should make policies accordingly.

Now what?

After this decision of the Supreme Court, all eyes will be on the opposition to see how its leaders react on this issue. Rahul Gandhi has already said in the initial session of the 18th Lok Sabha that if the All India Alliance government comes to power, he will get the caste census done. A few days ago, when Rahul Gandhi was allegedly asked about his caste, RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha wrote, “Can we have a ‘long-term discussion’ in both the houses of Parliament on caste census? This will be very helpful in understanding and seeing who stands where on this important milestone of social justice. An appeal to the Prime Minister is that he should not resort to denial and deception.”

Samajwadi Party MP Dharmendra Yadav said, “This is a wonderful decision and we socialists have been demanding this since the 60s. After the decision of the honourable court, the government should change its policy and intentions.”

Apart from this, a petition can be filed again against this decision in the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court will need a bench of at least 9 judges to overturn its own decision. If the NDA government wants, it can overturn this decision by bringing an Act. But if the government accepts this decision, then it will have to set up a commission and sub-categorize the SC-ST castes. After the commission’s report comes, the government may or may not decide to change its reservation.



Source link

Most Viewed

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.