SC verdict puts spotlight on affirmative action policies

In a diverse and pluralistic society like India, the issue of equality and affirmative action has always been a point of contention and debate. The recent discussions on the validity of sub-classification for SCs/STs have brought this issue to the forefront once again, sparking a heated debate on the nuances of affirmative action policies in the country.

The landmark ruling by the Supreme Court on August 1, 2024, on the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) has ignited a significant discourse on the complexities of addressing systemic discrimination within these marginalized communities. The 6:1 verdict by a Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, overturns the 2004 EV Chinnaiah judgment, signalling a pivotal moment in the quest for equitable representation.

The Indian Constitution, a beacon of democracy and justice, enshrines the principle of equality as a fundamental right. Article 14 stipulates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. This cornerstone provision ensures that every individual is treated equally, forming the bedrock of various protective measures laid out in the Constitution. Article 15(1) complements this by prohibiting discrimination against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. Recognizing the historical and systemic disadvantages faced by certain communities, Article 15(4) allows the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).

Article 16 furthers this commitment by guaranteeing equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Clause (1) ensures equal opportunity for all citizens, while Clause (2) prohibits discrimination on various grounds. Clause (4) specifically allows for reservation in appointments or posts for any backward class of citizens inadequately represented in state services. Articles 341 and 342 empower the President of India to specify the SCs and STs, while Articles 366(24) and 366(25) define these communities.

For half a century, various state governments in India have grappled with the contentious issue of sub-quotas within Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) reservations. This intricate saga of legal, social, and political manoeuvring reflects the complexities of addressing historical injustices while striving for equitable development. The recent Supreme Court verdict on SC/ST sub-classification, delivered on August 1, 2024, marks a significant turning point in this ongoing debate.

Historical Context

& State Initiatives

Punjab (1975): Under the leadership of Chief Minister Giani Zail Singh, Punjab initiated one of the earliest attempts at sub-classification within SC reservations. In 1975, the state government issued a notification that divided the existing 25% reservation for SCs into two halves: one for the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities and the other for the remaining SC groups. This move aimed to address the severe backwardness of certain SC subgroups by ensuring that the most disadvantaged communities received a fair share of reservation benefits. This decision was seen as a pioneering effort to rectify intra-caste disparities within the SC category. The Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikhs, who were among the most marginalized, benefited significantly from this sub-classification, gaining better access to education and employment opportunities.

Haryana (1994): Haryana followed a similar path two decades later. Under the administration of Chief Minister Bansi Lal, the state government issued a notification on November 9, 1994, which classified SCs into two blocks, A and B, for the purposes of reservation in government jobs. Block B included Chamars, Jatia Chamars, Rahgars, Raigars, Ramdasias, and Ravidasias, while Block A consisted of the remaining 36 castes in the state’s SC list. The notification mandated that 50% of the SC reservation in direct recruitment for government jobs be allocated to candidates from each block. It also included a mechanism to ensure flexibility: if suitable candidates from one block were unavailable, vacancies could be filled by candidates from the other block. This approach aimed to balance representation and provided equitable opportunities to various SC subgroups.

Andhra Pradesh (1996-2000): Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu of Andhra Pradesh adopted a more structured approach to SC sub-classification. In 1996, he appointed Justice P. Ramachandra Raju to lead a one-man commission to study the implementation of reservations among SCs and their impact on development in education and employment. The commission’s report, submitted in May 1997, confirmed significant disparities among SC sub-groups in availing reservation benefits and recommended a four-way classification. Based on the commission’s findings, the Andhra Pradesh government issued a government order (G.O.) to implement the sub-classification into A, B, C, and D groups.

This decision, however, faced legal challenges. Activists E V Chinnaiah, Venkat Rao, and P Venkateswara Rao contested the G.O. in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, arguing that it violated constitutional provisions. The High Court initially struck down the order, but the state government, under Naidu’s leadership, responded by promulgating the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Ordinance in 1999, followed by the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 2000. This legislation categorized the 57 castes in the Presidential list, assigning specific percentages of reservation to each group based on their population.

(Writer is ADGP (Retd.), Maharashtra, and President, Jai Bharat National Party)