Table of Contents
THE CONTEXT: The recent Supreme Court judgment in the State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh has reignited the debate on India’s reservation policies, particularly focusing on sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). This landmark decision challenges the traditional understanding of these groups as homogenous entities, potentially reshaping the reservation landscape.
THE ISSUES:
- Sub-classification within SCs and STs: The Supreme Court’s decision allows for sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to provide different percentages of reservation. The State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh’s judgment overrules the earlier decision in EV Chinnaiah (2005), which held that Dalits are a homogenous group, and no sub-classification can be made. Indra Sawhney’s (1992) case primarily dealt with sub-classification among OBCs, not SCs and STs.
- Judicial Enthusiasm and Dilution of Reservation Policies: The judiciary in India has historically shown reluctance towards reservation policies, often attempting to dilute them through various judgments. In the Dorairajan (1951) case, The Madras High Court and, subsequently, the Supreme Court struck down the reservation policy, leading to the first constitutional amendment inserting Clause (4) in Article 15. Veerpal Singh Chauhan’s (1995) and Ajit Singh’s (1999) case introduced the “catch-up rule,” which was later overturned by the 85th constitutional amendment.
- Constitutional Amendments to Overturn Judicial Decisions: The use of constitutional amendments to reverse Supreme Court judgments that dilute reservation policies. Indra Sawhney case (1992) led to the 77th, 81st, and 82nd constitutional amendments to address issues related to promotions, carry forward of unfilled posts, and relaxation of qualifying marks. M Nagaraj case (2006) upheld the constitutionality of these amendments but introduced requirements for proving backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and efficiency of administration.
- Criteria for Determining Backwardness: The criteria for determining backwardness in India have evolved, reflecting the country’s complex socio-economic landscape. There is a shift from “untouchability” and poverty to “inadequacy of representation” as a criterion for determining backwardness. The Mandal Commission developed eleven indicators of backwardness, classified into social, educational, and economic categories. Jarnail Singh (2018) overruled Nagaraj in collecting data to prove backwardness.
- Exclusion of the Creamy Layer: There is a debate over whether to exclude the creamy layer within SCs and STs from reservation benefits. The Ashok Thakur case (2008) clarified that the creamy layer doctrine does not apply to SC/ST reservations. In Davinder Singh (2023), four majority judges favored the exclusion of the creamy layer, though this was not an issue before the Court.
- Impact on Social Justice and Political Debate: The judgment has potential social and political implications, including pushing for a caste census. Indra Sawhney (1992) established the framework for OBC reservations and has been a reference point for subsequent debates on reservation policies. Davinder Singh’s (2023) judgment emphasizes representation criteria and has implications for state powers and social justice.
THE WAY FORWARD:
- Implement a Comprehensive Caste Census: A detailed caste census will provide accurate data on the socio-economic status of various castes, enabling more precise and effective reservation policies. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the inadequacy of representation as a criterion for backwardness in Davinder Singh (2023) highlights the need for accurate data. The Mandal Commission has recommended periodic caste censuses to ensure reservation policies are based on current and accurate data. The Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) conducted in 2011 provided valuable insights but was not comprehensive enough for policymaking.
- Exclude the Creamy Layer Across All Reserved Categories: Excluding the economically and socially advanced individuals within reserved categories (SCs, STs, and OBCs) will ensure that reservation benefits reach the genuinely disadvantaged. The concept of the creamy layer was introduced in Indra Sawhney (1992) for OBCs and has been debated for SCs and STs in recent judgments like Davinder Singh (2023). The National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) and other experts have supported excluding the creamy layer to make reservation policies more effective.
- Focus on Economic Criteria Alongside Caste: Incorporating economic and caste-based criteria will ensure that reservation policies address economic deprivation and social backwardness. Introducing the 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in 2019 under the 103rd Constitutional Amendment is a step in this direction. The Supreme Court’s approval of EWS reservations in Jarnail Singh (2018) reflects the recognition of economic criteria in reservation policies.
- Strengthen Educational and Employment Opportunities at the Grassroots Level: Enhancing access to quality education and employment opportunities at the grassroots level will reduce the need for reservations in higher education and government jobs. The Supreme Court in Nagaraj (2006) emphasized the need for maintaining efficiency in administration while implementing reservation policies. Initiatives like the Right to Education Act (RTE) and various scholarship programs for SCs, STs, and OBCs have positively impacted educational attainment.
- Regular Review and Monitoring of Reservation Policies: Periodic review and monitoring of reservation policies will ensure they remain relevant and effective in addressing the needs of marginalized communities. The Supreme Court’s judgments, including Indra Sawhney (1992) and Davinder Singh (2023), highlight the need to assess reservation policies continuously. The periodic review of the OBC list by the NCBC ensures that the list remains relevant and includes only those who genuinely need reservation benefits.
THE CONCLUSION:
The evolving judicial interpretations and legislative responses underscore the dynamic nature of India’s reservation policies. As the nation grapples with these changes, the focus must remain on ensuring that the benefits of affirmative action reach the most marginalized and disadvantaged communities.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTIONS:
Q.1 The Constitution of India is a living instrument with capabilities of enormous dynamism. It is a constitution made for a progressive society. Illustrate with special reference to the expanding horizons of the right to life and personal liberty. 2023
Q.2 Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy. Comment. 2023
Q.3 Do you think India’s constitution does not accept the principle of strict separation of powers? Rather, it is based on the ‘checks and balances’ principle? Explain. 2019
Q.4 ‘Constitutional Morality’ is rooted in the Constitution and founded on its essential facets. Explain the doctrine of ‘Constitutional Morality’ with the help of relevant judicial decisions. 2021
Q.5 Why is caste identity in India both fluid and static? 2023
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q.1 Inadequacy of representation has emerged as a vital criterion for determining backwardness in recent judicial pronouncements. Discuss the merits and demerits of this criterion compared to traditional indicators of social and economic backwardness.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word