The Constitutional Framework And Judicial Interpretation Of SC/ST Quotas: A Study Of The Recent Supreme Court Judgment

Author:-Dibakar Dam, a Student, BBALLB, 4th Year, School of Law, Brainware University, Barasat, India.

Abstract:

This article explores the constitutional framework and judicial interpretation of SC/ST quotas in India, spotlighting a recent Supreme Court judgment. Key constitutional provisions, including Articles 15(4), 16(4), 46, and 342, underpin these affirmative action policies. The Court’s landmark decision reiterates the need for quantifiable data to justify reservations, extends the creamy layer concept to SCs and STs, upholds reservations in promotions with data support, mandates periodic policy reviews, and calls for special measures for the most marginalized. These directives ensure evidence-based policymaking, balance merit with social justice, and adapt policies to evolving socio-economic conditions. The judgment’s implications highlight the importance of robust data collection, addressing intra-community disparities, and strong political will for effective implementation, reinforcing India’s commitment to equality and justice.

Keywords: Reservation, Equality and Justice, Constitutional Framework, SC/ST Quotas.

Introduction:

India’s socio-legal landscape has evolved through various affirmative action policies designed to address historical injustices and promote social equality. Among these, the reservation policies for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) stand out as particularly significant. These quotas, enshrined in the Indian Constitution, aim to provide fair opportunities in education, employment, and political representation for marginalized communities. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of these provisions has been crucial in balancing the constitutional mandate of equality with the need for social justice.

In the past few decades Indian judiciary provides various judgements on reservation and employment for Schedule caste and schedule Tribes. The main reason behind it to promote their social uplifting of those communities. From the very beginning SC/ST are considered as a homogeneous but society are changing day by day and it is also shown from the statistics that the purpose of reservation is not fulfilled. In the recent judgement by the Supreme Court 7 judges bench headed by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud with 6:1 ratio gave the permission to every state that they can make Sub-Classification among the SC/ST for the purpose of better services.

Constitutional Framework:

The Indian Constitution contains specific provisions for the upliftment of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) communities. These provisions aim to address historical disadvantages and promote social, economic, and political progress for these marginalized groups. Let’s explore some key aspects of the constitutional framework for SCs and STs:

Article 341 and Article 342:

Article 341 deals with Scheduled Castes, while Article 342 deals with Scheduled Tribes. The President of India, based on the recommendations from the Governor of a state or the central government, holds the authority to officially designate certain castes or tribes as Scheduled Castes (SC) or Scheduled Tribes (ST).

This process involves a systematic approach where state or central authorities identify communities that are socially and economically disadvantaged. The Governor of a state or the central government evaluates these communities and recommends them for inclusion in the SC or ST categories. The President then reviews these recommendations and, upon approval, issues an official notification. This designation as SC or ST provides these communities with access to various affirmative action benefits aimed at improving their social and economic status, such as reserved seats in education, employment, and political representation.

Reservation Policy:

Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) of the Constitution provide for reservation to the socially and educationally backward sections of society. The government at both State and Central levels can reserve a fixed number of seats for SCs and STs in government services.

Representation in Legislative Bodies:

The Indian Constitution guarantees representation for SCs and STs in the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and State Legislative Assemblies. A specific number of seats are reserved for these communities based on their population ratios. Initially, this reservation policy was implemented for ten years, ending in 1960. In summary, the constitutional provisions aim to uplift SCs and STs by providing specific safeguards, representation, and opportunities for socio-economic progress. However, challenges remain, and efforts continue to ensure that the gains of development reach these communities to the desired extent.

Judicial Interpretation:

The route of SCs and STs reservation find its origin in Panjab in the year of 1975. Let me provide an overview of the development of judicial interpretation on reservation from 1975 to 2024:

1975 – Punjab Reservation Policy: In 1975, the government of Punjab issued a notification that divided its existing 25% reservation for Scheduled Castes (SC) into two categories. Half of these reserved seats for the SC category were allocated to Balmikis (Valmikis) and Mazhabi Sikhs. The other half of the reserved seats was for the remaining groups within the SC category.

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992):

The Indira Sawhney v. Union of India judgment, commonly known as the Mandal Commission case, is a significant legal decision related to reservation in India. Here are the key points from the judgment:

Background: The case was decided by the Supreme Court of India in 1992. It addressed the issue of reservation for backward classes in government jobs and educational institutions.

Key Aspects of the Judgment: 50% Quota Ceiling: The court upheld the ceiling of 50% quotas for reservation. This means that the total reservation (including SCs, STs, and OBCs) should not exceed 50% of India’s population.

Social Backwardness: The judgment emphasized the concept of “social backwardness” as the basis for providing reservation. It recognized that certain groups faced historical disadvantages and needed affirmative action to achieve equality.

Creamy Layer Exclusion: The court prescribed 11 indicators to ascertain backwardness. It also addressed the issue of “creamy layer” within the backward classes. The “creamy layer” refers to the relatively better-off sections within these classes who should be excluded from reservation benefits.

Implementation: The judgment provided guidelines for the identification of the creamy layer and its exclusion from reservation benefits.

Impact: The Mandal Commission’s recommendation of 27% quota for OBCs was upheld by the court. The judgment had a significant impact on government policies related to reservation and social justice.

E.V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh (2004):

In 2004, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh. The court ruled that sub-classification within the SC category was not permitted. It held that state governments could not categorize any group of people as Scheduled Castes; this power solely belonged to the President. Additionally, the court considered the Scheduled Caste category as a whole to be “homogenous,” meaning that any sub-classification within this group would result in unequal treatment and violate the right to equality.

Punjab’s Response and the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006: Following the Chinnaiah decision, the Punjab government enacted the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006.This Act aimed to address the issue of sub-classification within the SC category. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court struck down the earlier Punjab notification on 25 July 2006, which had divided the SC reservation into sub-categories.

Let’s explain the 77th and 85th amendments related to reservation and promotion in government jobs:

77th Amendment:

The 77th Amendment to the Indian Constitution was enacted in 1995. It amended Article 16 to address the issue of reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). Prior to this amendment, the Supreme Court had ruled in the Indra Sawhney v. UOI case that reservations could not be applied in promotions. The 77th Amendment restored reservation in promotions by inserting Article 16 (4A), which specifically enabled reservation for SCs and STs in promotional posts.

However, despite this amendment, a significant number of promotional posts remained vacant due to the non-availability of eligible SC/ST candidates. This was because of the 50% reservation ceiling prescribed in the Indra Sawhney judgment.

To address this issue, the Constitution (Eighty-First Amendment) Act, 2000 added Article 16 (4-B), treating the unfilled posts as a separate class.

85th Amendment:

The 85th Amendment was enacted in 2001 and further modified Article 16 (4A). It introduced the principle of consequential seniority for SCs and STs candidates promoted by reservation. In other words, SCs and STs who were given the benefit of promotion would also receive seniority in their respective services. This amendment expanded the scope of reservation policies and addressed issues related to promotions, seniority, and unfilled vacancies for SCs and STs.

In summary, the 77th Amendment restored reservation in promotions, while the 85th Amendment provided consequential seniority to SCs and STs candidates promoted through reservation. These amendments aimed to ensure equitable representation and opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups in government jobs.

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006):

The M. Nagaraj v. Union of India case, decided in 2006, is a landmark judgment related to affirmative action and reservation in promotions in India. The case challenged the constitutional validity of the 77th and 81st Constitutional Amendments. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of reservations in promotions for SCs and STs but imposed conditions, such as demonstrating backwardness, inadequacy of representation, and ensuring administrative efficiency.

Landmark Supreme Court Judgment on SC/ST Quotas State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024):

In a landmark 6-1 majority ruling on Thursday (Aug 2), a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that Scheduled Castes (SCs) do not constitute a socially homogeneous class and can be sub-classified by states to provide reservations for the less privileged among them. This ruling emphasized the need for a “rational principle” for such differentiation, which must have “a nexus with the purpose of sub-classification.” Four of the majority ruling judges also supported excluding the creamy layer from SCs and Scheduled Tribes (STs).

Background

This majority verdict by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices B R Gavai, Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Manoj Misra overturned the 2004 judgment in EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh. The Chinnaiah ruling had held that SCs constituted a homogeneous group and could not be sub-categorized. Justice Bela M Trivedi was the lone dissenter, maintaining that SCs formed a homogeneous class and should not be tinkered with by the states.

Rationale and Key Points

The matter was brought before the seven-judge Bench after a five-judge Bench, on August 27, 2020, in State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh, suggested revisiting the Chinnaiah judgment due to overlooked significant aspects. The majority ruling rejected the argument that SCs, once enumerated in the Presidential List under Article 341 of the Constitution, formed a homogeneous class incapable of further subdivision or sub-classification.

Key Highlights:

Non-Homogeneous Class:

Article 341 does not create an integrated homogeneous class. Empirical evidence indicates inequality even within SCs, making them a non-homogeneous, integrated class.

Parliament’s Power:

Parliament has the power to exclude or include “any caste, race or tribe,” including parts or groups within any caste, race, or tribe, as per Article 341(2). Sub-classification within SCs for affirmative action does not include or exclude any caste or group from the List.

State’s Role:

States can identify different degrees of social backwardness and provide special provisions, such as reservations, to address specific degrees of harm. Sub-classification must be based on quantifiable and demonstrable data on levels of backwardness and representation in state services, not political expediency. Decisions by states on sub-classification are subject to judicial review.

Inadequacy of Representation:

The state must establish that the inadequacy of representation of a caste/group is due to its backwardness. Representation must be assessed across various posts, not just total numbers within services.

Creamy Layer:

Justice Gavai called for identifying and excluding the creamy layer even among SCs and STs to achieve real equality.

Concurring Opinions

Justice Gavai:

Compared the resistance to sub-classification within the Presidential List to people in a train’s general compartment preventing others from entering once they get inside. Emphasized the need for those already benefiting from reservations to not oppose special treatment for the less privileged within the SCs. Advocated for excluding the creamy layer from SCs and STs to achieve real equality.

Justice Mithal:

Called for a fresh look at the existing reservation policy and the development of new methods for uplifting the depressed classes. Highlighted that many from the most backward classes drop out of school early, while only children from relatively affluent castes benefit from higher education and reservations. Noted that the policy has led to significant litigation and social unrest. Suggested a misconception of the varna system as a caste system, which divided society and caused discrimination.

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Trivedi:

Argued that the 2004 Chinnaiah judgment was correct and should be upheld. Stressed that SCs, as identified in the Presidential Orders under Article 341, constitute a homogeneous class that should not be altered by the states. Maintained that the sub-classification would violate the homogeneous nature of the SCs.

Implications of the Ruling

The ruling clarifies that while states can undertake sub-classification, it must be rational, data-driven, and subject to judicial review. This ensures that reservations serve the genuinely disadvantaged sections within the SCs and STs without being misused for political gains. The introduction of the creamy layer concept aims to prevent relatively privileged individuals within these communities from monopolizing reserved benefits, thus promoting more equitable distribution.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment marks a significant shift in the approach to SC/ST reservations, promoting a more nuanced and targeted affirmative action policy. It aims to balance the constitutional mandate of equality with the necessity of social justice by ensuring that reservations reach those who need them the most. This decision underscores the importance of data-driven policies and judicial oversight to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of affirmative action in India.

The indigenous frame and judicial interpretation of SC ST proportions reflect India’s commitment to social justice and equivalency. The recent Supreme Court judgment has handed much- demanded clarity on several contentious issues, paving the way for further targeted and effective perpetration of reservation programs. As India continues its trip towards an inclusive society, it’s imperative to insure that affirmative action programs are grounded on empirical substantiation, periodically reviewed, and acclimatized to address the evolving requirements of marginalized communities. By doing so, India can uphold the indigenous pledge of equivalency and justice for all its citizens.

References