Reservations in India is perhaps the most controversial topic. A mere mention of the removal or change in this policy is enough to cause riots. This kind of reaction is expected as, except for the General Category, all the classes of people are reserved in India. We don't have the government data regarding the caste-wise population of India, but there are various surveys done to find the details of caste-wise population in India. The most prominent of these surveys is the Pew Research, where the majority of Indians claimed that they were from the lower castes, that is SC/ST or OBC. In a country where the majority are of the lower caste, it is just common sense that it becomes a major topic for politics, and majority appeasement becomes the standard.
History of Reservations in India
Reservations were introduced in India as an affirmative action to support the marginalized or backward communities in India. Initially, only people belonging to SC and ST were given reservations. However, after the VP Singh-led government decided to implement the Mandal Commission, OBCs were also brought under the reservations, changing the nature of politics in India. Post-implementation of the Mandal Commission, India has become more divided by caste, and we have seen the rise of caste leaders such as Lalu Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav, and Mayawati as a phenomenon.
Current Situation
Like everything in India, we were not able to achieve the targets for which the reservations were brought. Every time there is a new vacancy, some new policy of the state government is brought to action, which is then challenged in court, leading to endless litigations. This results in delays in the recruitment process, and many seats remain vacant, burdening the government and blunting the efficiency of the administration. The results of this inefficiency are evident in our daily interactions with government offices. One such policy of the governments is to subclassify the reserved communities, and it is over this issue that the Supreme Court passed a landmark judgment on 1st August 2024.
The State of Punjab and Ors Vs Davinder Singh
Background
The issue in this case arises when the State Legislature of Punjab enacted the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act 2006. Section 4(5) of this act provides for 50% reservation in direct recruitment of Scheduled Castes, but priority is to be given to Mazhabi Sikhs or Balmikis as the first preference. This section of the Act was challenged.
Constitutional Provisions Applicable
Article 14 provides for equality before law to all citizens, while Article 15(1) states that the State should not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them. However, under Article 15(4), the state has the power to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. Further, Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Article 341 gives the President the power to notify the castes, races, or tribes which shall be deemed to be Scheduled Castes, and Article 342 does the same for Scheduled Tribes.
Precedent Set
In the case EV Chinniah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the same issue of the subcategorization of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was discussed and held as unconstitutional, as these groups form a singular group. Based on this decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court declared the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act 2006 as unconstitutional. The State then challenged the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by relying on the 9-judge bench decision in the case Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, it was held that the backward classes could be divided into the ‘more backward’ and ‘backward’, depending on inter-se backwardness. Further, the Supreme Court relied on various judgments such as State of Kerala v. NM Thomas and Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta.
Judgment
The Hon'ble judges, relying on the statistics, noted that deprived and marginalized persons have not been able to achieve the benefit of reservation. The Hon'ble judge further noted that the government has used caste as the basis for upliftment rather than identifying the class of people based on vocation or their social and economic conditions who actually require help to be promoted to the level of the forward class. The experience shows that the better-off among the backward classes take up most of the reserved vacancies/seats, leaving the most backward with nothing in their hands.
This situation was illustrated using an example of three students, A, B, and C. Both A and B come from well-to-do families with similar status, family background, education, and financial capacity. A, a general category candidate, qualifies for admission on merit, whereas B, from a backward class, qualifies for admission in the reserved category. Student C, also from a backward class but without the same advantages, remains unsuccessful. Repeatedly, backward class candidates with similar advantages to A and B qualify, leaving the most backward behind.
The Supreme Court relied on Hindu scriptures such as Skanda Purana and Bhagwat Gita to assert that ancient India was a casteless society. The court observed that reservation is a facility, but its execution revives casteism. Quoting Nani Palkhiwala, the court stated that:
"The basic structure of the Constitution envisages a cohesive, unified, casteless society. By breathing new life into casteism, the judgment fractures the nation and disregards the basic structure of the Constitution. The decision would revitalise casteism, cleave the nation into two – forward and backward - and open new vistas for internecine conflicts and fissiparous forces, and make backwardness a vested interest. It will undo whatever has been achieved since independence towards creating a unified, integrated nation. The majority judgments will revive casteism which the Constitution emphatically intended to end; and the pre-independence tragedy would be re-enacted with the roles reversed – the erstwhile underprivileged would now become the privileged."
The Supreme Court also quoted the views of Jawaharlal Nehru:
"I want my country to be a first-class country in everything. The moment we encourage the second-rate, we are lost. The only real way to help a backward group is to give opportunities for good education, including technical education, which is becoming more important. Everything else is a provision of crutches which do not add to the strength or health of the body."
Based on these views, the Supreme Court concluded that sub-classification of the scheduled castes is constitutionally permissible. The policy of reservation, as enshrined under the Constitution and by its various amendments, requires a fresh re-look and the development of other methods for helping and uplifting the depressed class or the downtrodden. Periodical exercises should exclude those who, after taking advantage of reservation, have reached parity with the general category. The court favored adding the concept of "creamy layer" to the SC and ST population, suggesting that those who have availed reservations once should not be granted the same again, as it deprives other underprivileged individuals.
Personal Opinion
I never thought that I would agree with any judgment in toto, but this judgment is so well reasoned and written that I must admit I agree entirely. These are issues that we are not generally allowed to discuss, as even mentioning them can result in being labeled "anti-dalit," as the Hon'ble Judges have also observed. Ultimately, give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. Giving reservations is like giving that fish, but without skills, the man never learns. The government should explore other ways to help the downtrodden, but instead, they are satisfied with the votes they receive.
Conclusion
The issue of reservations in India remains deeply complex and contentious. While the original intent was to uplift marginalized communities, the implementation and evolution of these policies have led to significant political and social challenges. The Supreme Court's recent judgment highlights the need for a nuanced approach to reservations, recognizing the disparities within the backward classes themselves. The concept of "creamy layer" within the SC and ST populations and the periodic review of reservation policies may be necessary steps to ensure that the benefits reach those truly in need.
The judgment calls for a reassessment of how reservations are administered, suggesting that a focus on education and skill development might be more effective in achieving the goal of social equality. This approach aligns with the vision of a casteless, unified society as envisaged by the framers of the Constitution. As India continues to navigate these complex issues, it is crucial that policies evolve to reflect the changing socio-economic realities, ensuring that the principles of justice and equality are upheld for all citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment