• UGI USER
  • Mar 13, 2024
  • 17 Likes
  • 0 Comments

INTRA-GROUP CASTE VARIANCES, EQUALITY AND THE COURT’S GAZE

Syllabus:

GS 2:

  • Constitution of India —historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure.

Focus:

  • Soon, a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India will deliver its judgment in State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh
Source:- LAW INSIDER

The Supreme Court of India is set to rule on State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh, a crucial case addressing the legality of sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) for public employment recruitment. The central question revolves around whether state governments have the authority to make sub-classifications within the prescribed proportion of SCs and STs.

Historical Context and Legal Precedents

Circular Issued by Government of Punjab (1975)

  • In 1975, the Government of Punjab issued a circular specifying that 50% of vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes (SCs) in the state would be allocated to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs.
  • This circular aimed to address intra-group variances within the SC category by providing preferential treatment to specific sub-groups.

E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2004)

  • The legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) is pivotal in understanding the legal framework surrounding sub-classification within SCs.
  • The case challenged the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000, which sought to carve out four distinct categories within the SC list and allocate separate quotas based on their backwardness.
  • The Supreme Court ruled that only Parliament has the authority to modify the list of SCs, as outlined in Article 341 of the Indian Constitution.
  • The judgment emphasized the importance of not allowing state governments to amend the SC list for political considerations and highlighted the exclusive authority of Parliament in this regard.

Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992)

  • The case of Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992), also known as the Mandal Commission case, provides additional context regarding sub-classification within socially and educationally backward classes (OBCs).
  • The Supreme Court, in a nine-judge bench ruling, upheld the permissibility of sub-classifications within OBCs for government services.
  • The judgment endorsed the view that reasonable classifications are permissible to ensure equality and fairness, as long as they are based on rational criteria and aim to address the backwardness of certain groups.

Punjab’s Persistence and Legal Response

  • Despite the 1975 circular being struck down, the Government of Punjab persisted in its efforts to address intra-group variances within SCs.
  • In response to legal challenges, Punjab enacted the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, which once again provided preferential treatment to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs.
  • The constitutionality of this law was challenged, leading to a series of legal proceedings and eventually prompting the Supreme Court to reconsider its stance on sub-classification within SCs.

Creation of a Seven-Judge Bench

  • The doubts raised by the Supreme Court regarding its earlier verdict in the Chinnaiah case led to the creation of a seven-judge Bench to reexamine the issues raised.
  • This indicates the significance of the case and the need for a comprehensive and authoritative interpretation of the law regarding sub-classification within SCs.

Constitutional Commitment to Equality and Reservation

Foundational Principles in the Constitution

·    Articles 14 to 16: These articles form the cornerstone of equality provisions in the Indian Constitution.

·    Article 14: Ensures equality before the law and equal protection of laws within the territory of India.

·    Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

·    Article 16: Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.

Recognition of Historical Discrimination

  • The framers of the Constitution acknowledged the deep-seated discrimination prevalent in Indian society, particularly based on caste.
  • Historical injustices and social inequalities were entrenched for centuries, necessitating affirmative action measures.

Constitutional Mandate for Substantive Equality

  • The Indian Constitution doesn’t merely espouse formal equality but emphasizes substantive equality.
  • Substantive equality entails the creation of conditions that enable marginalized groups to overcome historical disadvantages and participate equitably in societal processes.
  • Reservations are viewed as instruments to achieve substantive equality by providing opportunities for marginalized communities to access education, employment, and other avenues of socio-economic advancement.

Judicial Interpretations and Affirmation of Equality

  • The judiciary has played a pivotal role in interpreting and upholding the constitutional commitment to equality.
  • Landmark judgments such as State Of Kerala vs N.M. Thomas (1975) have underscored the government’s duty to ensure substantive equality through effective affirmative action policies.
  • The Supreme Court has recognized reservations as legitimate tools to address historical injustices and promote inclusivity, while also stressing the need for these measures to be targeted, effective, and periodically reviewed.

Sub-Classification and Constitutional Validity

  • The Punjab law does not modify the President’s list of SCs but addresses inter se backwardness within it.
  • Sub-classifications must be judged based on their rational nexus with ensuring fair treatment and equal opportunity.
  • The authority vested in states to provide special measures to the most discriminated castes within SCs and STs aligns with the constitutional goal of achieving equality.

The case of ‘State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh’ underscores the importance of recognizing intra-group caste variances and the constitutional obligation to ensure equality through effective reservation policies. The forthcoming judgment holds significant implications for the future of affirmative action in India.

Sub-categorisation

·    Sub-categorisation within castes involves creating sub-groups within Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) for reservation purposes.

·    The objective is to tackle inequalities within these categories and ensure a fairer distribution of benefits and opportunities.

·    It aims to identify and prioritize the most deprived and marginalized sections within each caste group.

·    Sub-categorisation seeks to enhance the effectiveness of reservation policies by targeting specific sub-groups that may face greater socio-economic disadvantages.

·    The process involves analyzing socio-economic data to identify the most deserving sub-groups within each caste category.

·    Ultimately, sub-categorisation aims to achieve greater inclusivity and address the diverse needs and challenges faced by different segments within the broader caste groups.

Source:

https://epaper.thehindu.com/reader

Mains Practice Question:

Discuss the constitutional commitment to equality and reservation in India, examining its historical roots, legal framework, and contemporary relevance. Evaluate the role of reservations in addressing historical injustices and promoting inclusivity, while also analyzing the challenges and criticisms associated with these affirmative action measures.