Extending social justice

• On October 4, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark ruling, affirming the constitutional validity of the sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes (SCs). This decision overturned the previous 2004 judgment in E V Chinnaiah vs.
• State of Andhra Pradesh, which had deemed sub-categorization unconstitutional. The ruling holds significant implications for the ongoing discourse on reservation in India, though it has faced criticism from various commentators.

Background of the Judgment:

• The 6-1 majority ruling by a seven-judge constitutional bench marks a pivotal shift in how the law interprets the reservation framework. The judgment elucidates that Article 341 of the Constitution does not create new castes but rather selects certain pre-existing castes for inclusion in the SC category.
• This understanding is essential because it establishes that while the executive has the authority to investigate and address internal inequalities among the SCs, it cannot alter the composition of the Schedules without parliamentary action.

Key Features of the Judgment:

• The ruling is built upon four crucial principles:
• Sub-Categorization as a Tool for Equality: The Court establishes that sub-categorization should be seen as a means to promote substantive equality rather than merely an exception to it. This aligns sub-categorization with the broader goals of reservation.
• Administrative Efficiency: The judgment emphasizes that the need for efficient administration should be interpreted in ways that foster equality and inclusion, countering past arguments that sought to limit reservation.
• Inclusive Sub-Categorization: Unlike the 2022 Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) judgment, which excluded SCs, STs, and OBCs from EWS benefits, this ruling mandates that sub-categorization must not exclude the socially and educationally advanced among the SCs.
• Empirical Evidence Requirement: The judgment stipulates that any sub-categorization scheme must provide empirical evidence of material inequalities within the SCs, particularly regarding their representation in government services.

The Significance of Internal Differentiation:

• The ruling also introduces a critical discussion on the historical and empirical evidence of inter-se backwardness within the SCs. The Supreme Court's acknowledgment of the heterogeneity of the SCs highlights the complexities of caste dynamics in contemporary India. Yet, despite the weight of this evidence, public debate around sub-categorization remains limited, often overshadowed by a resistance rooted in historical contexts.

Criticism and Concerns:

• Notably, criticisms of the ruling echo arguments historically made by upper-caste interests against reservation itself. Detractors have suggested that providing economic support instead of reservation fails to address caste discrimination, while claims that sub-quotas would go unfilled lack historical grounding.
• Similar arguments were dismissed when reservation policies were first implemented, as initial obstacles eventually gave way to successful integration into the bureaucracy.
• The judgment’s authors, Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Manoj Mishra, recognized the challenges of implementing transparent, evidence-based criteria for sub-categorization, acknowledging the complexities involved.
• However, the successful struggles for sub-categorization in states like Punjab, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh demonstrate that it is possible to reach a consensus on these matters through collaborative efforts.

A Call for Unity and Justice:

• To ensure the effective implementation of sub-categorization, it is imperative for the SC community to come together. The historical struggles of B.R. Ambedkar and the emphasis on justice resonate today, reminding us that within the larger SC category, there exist discriminated minorities who require special attention.
• Unity among SCs, grounded in the principles of social backwardness and equitable representation, is essential for securing their rights in the evolving landscape of Indian social justice.

conclusion:

• While the Supreme Court's decision marks a progressive step forward in the framework of reservation, the challenge lies in fostering a robust public discourse and achieving a consensus that effectively addresses internal inequalities within the Scheduled Castes.