14/10/2024
Material victory - ideological defeat
In this article, N Venugopal explains the background of the Supreme Court's latest judgment on the reservation classification of Scheduled Castes and the possible consequences of that judgment.
The dispute over reservation classification of scheduled castes, which has been raging incessantly for thirty years in the political arena, legal system and the society as a whole, finally came to an end on August 1 with the judgment of the Supreme Court. A seven-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the classification for sub-castes in the reservation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is constitutional. This judgment also said that classifying the reservation given to a community is not against the principle of equality mentioned in Article 14 of the Constitution, and also that the community recognized by the President as Scheduled Castes according to Article 341 is not a homogenous group, there is diversity in it, and the state governments can take decisions in accordance with that diversity.
A bench of Chief Justice Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Pankaj Mittal, Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice SC Sharma delivered the favorable judgment while Justice Bela M Trivedi delivered a dissenting opinion. The judges who gave the positive verdict also wrote five separate verdicts. The 565-page verdict, comprising six opinions of seven judges, is historic in various social, economic, political and legal standards. However, some of the opinions expressed by the judges as part of this judgment raise new questions rather than answering old ones. Hence, there are chances that this sensational verdict will lead to more actions in the future and become controversial.
Although this judgment seems to have fulfilled the aspirations of the Madiga Reservation Struggle Samiti (MRPS) movement that started in 1994 under the leadership of Manda Krishna Madiga and is still going on in the united Andhra Pradesh, it actually came out in a different case, State of Punjab and Others vs. Davinder Singh and Others. Otherwise, the judgment overturns the earlier five-judge judgment of the Supreme Court in EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh in 2004, which struck down the SC classification. As the 2004 judgment struck down the decision taken and the law made by the Andhra Pradesh government in accordance with the aspirations of the MRPS movement, the current judgment seems to have struck down that strike. That means reservation classification is justified.
The demand for implementation of classification in Scheduled Caste reservations has a long history. According to the constitutional directive to provide reservation to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in educational and job opportunities, 15 percent reservation for Scheduled Castes and 7.5 percent for Scheduled Tribes has been in vogue for decades. However, it was only in the 1980s that views began to emerge that the Scheduled Castes were not a monolithic mass and that there were different groups within it. In the 1990s, a discontent began spread that even after decades some groups could not get even the minimum educational and employment opportunities, that the groups who had already reaped considerable benifits and better status in the educational, social and economic sectors were enjoying reservation opportunities in excess to proportion to their population. This discontent, which mainly came from the Madigalas, targeted the Mala group.
However, among the castes identified as Scheduled Castes in the united Andhra Pradesh, Mala and Madiga are the largest castes in terms of numbers, and there are fifty-eight other castes apart from these two. They are broadly recognized as sub-castes and dependent castes of those two castes. After the bifurcation of the state, the Beda (Budaga) Jangam caste in the divided Andhra Pradesh and the Godagali caste in Telangana were removed from the list. That means now there are 57 scheduled castes in both the states apart from Mala and Madiga. There are different castes of different social and economic levels from the Mang Garodi caste which has the least number of five to the Adi Dravida caste which has a population of more than two and a half lakhs. There are many sub-castes who do not get jobs and political representation and still do not get even the minimum educational opportunities.
According to the latest available statistics (2011 census) there are one crore thirty eight lakh people belonging to scheduled castes in Andhra Pradesh. Separately, the total SC population in Telangana is 54.32 lakhs, of which Madigas 32.33 lakhs, Malas 15.27 lakhs, and the remaining 6 lakhs belong to other sub-castes. Also, in divided Andhra Pradesh, the total SC population is 84.45 lakhs, Malas 40.43 lakhs, Madigas 34.68 lakhs, and the remaining 9 lakhs are other sub-castes.
The demand for implementation of classification in reservations to redress the injustice meted out to them in educational and employment opportunities found expression in the Adi Jambava Arundhatiya South India Federation meetings that began in 1990. Madiga Reservation Porota Samiti was formed on June 7, 1994 in Idumudi village of Prakasam district as a result of dissatisfaction that even the leadership of that federation was not doing enough to protect the rights of Madigas. MRPS started with thirteen members and was led by Manda Krishna Madiga, Ponugoti Krupakar Madiga, Dandu Veeraya Madiga, Mary Madiga and others. As the Madigas constitute a significant number of the Scheduled Caste population of the combined Andhra Pradesh, very soon the MRPS reached every Madiga village across the state and the Madiga Dandora movement became a dominant movement. MRPS organized hundreds of meetings, meetings and demonstrations across the state including the capital with thousands and lakhs of people. All progressive, democratic and revolutionary forces in the state fully supported the slogan of ABCD classification in Scheduled Castes. Even the political parties have come to the point where they have to declare their clear stand on classification and almost all the parties have declared their support at least to Baiti. Gradually Madiga's support grew to an influential level in electoral politics as well.
In the course of this movement, the government had to set up the P. Ramachandra Raju Commission to investigate the possibilities of classification of Mala-Madiga reservation. At the same time, in 1997, MRPS extended a thousand km from Naravaripalle, the hometown of the then Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu, to Hyderabad. Made Madiga Maha Padayatra. On the one hand, while the yatra was going on, on 28 May 1997, the Justice Ramachandraraju Commission submitted its report in favor of classification. The government accepted the report and issued an order classifying it as ABCD.
While the central government's tendency to protect is like this, in this matter, the Supreme Court has moved from an unexpected direction. It is a legal dispute related to classification in SC reservation in Punjab.
The Punjab state government sometime in 1975 classified the 25 percent reservation allotted to the Scheduled Castes in that state and ordered to give first priority in education and job opportunities to the Balmiki and Majabi Sikh communities. Those orders were smoothly implemented for thirty years. But these were two years after the Supreme Court judgment in the Chinnaiah case, i.e. in June 2006, citing that judgment, the Punjab-Haryana High Court struck down the 1975 order of the Punjab government. To reverse that rejection, the Punjab government brought in the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservations in Services) Act in October 2006, re-establishing first priority for the Balmiki and Majabi Sikh communities. The Punjab-Haryana High Court also struck down that law in 2010. The Punjab government approached the Supreme Court challenging the dismissal.
In 2014, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court opined that a five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court should examine the merits of the Chinnayya verdict during the hearing of the case. The five-judge bench (Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice Vineet Saran, Justice MR Shah, Justice Aniruddha Bose) gave its judgment in 2020 and opined that there were mistakes in Chinnayya's judgment and that it should be re-examined and a wider bench was needed for that. Thus, the current seven-judge bench took the cases of Punjab and Andhra Pradesh under its purview and heard the arguments of all the parties and issued the present verdict.
Chief Justice Justice Chandrachud, in a judgment written by Justice Misra, opined that sub-classification is a means to achieve meaningful equality. He said that Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality, does not mean formal equality but real equality. He said that the classification is acceptable if the target persons are not in equal position. The same logic applies to the need for sub-classification even within the same group. He said that as there is sufficient evidence to say that there is inequality within the Scheduled Caste itself, it is not possible to say that the Scheduled Castes are a homogenous group under Article 341.
While agreeing with the judgment, Justice BR Gavai, who wrote his separate judgment, said it was the duty of the government to give priority to the backward communities. Although these are only observations on the Chinnaiah judgment in the present case, Justice Gavai spoke of the application of the creamy layer principle to the Scheduled Castes as well. He said that after experiencing the results of reservation and positive discrimination and reaching a level socially, economically and educationally, those people should voluntarily give up their opportunities and transfer those opportunities to more needy and deserving people. Therefore, it is suggested that the government should take steps to identify the creamy layer who have benefited from positive action in SCs and STs.
While concurring with the main judgment, Justice Vikram Nath, writing a separate opinion, said that while a state government is sub-classifying, the decision should be based on strong factual data. He also said that the principle of creamy layer should be applied to SCs and STs.
While concurring with the main judgement, Justice Pankaj Mittal said that since this is a matter related to reservations, his views have to be written separately. Explaining the history of reservations and the history of constitutional amendments, this judge wrote about the originally depressed classes as "so called depressed classes" and his focus is on the oppression and persecution that happened and is happening in the social life of our country. He said that instead of looking at whether the reservation policy has benefited the respective communities or the success or failure of the policies, we should look at how many lawsuits have arisen due to these policies and how much pressure has been placed on the judiciary.He said that in order to avoid this pressure, a strict reservation system had to be established. Statistics show that reservations have not benefited the most backward classes, with half of the most backward classes dropping out by the fifth grade, 75 percent of students dropping out before the eighth grade, and 95 percent of students dropping out before completing high school, and only the children of the relatively affluent, urban-dwelling families of those castes. He said that they are getting reservation in the above studies. He understood that all this argument seems to be an argument against the original reservation itself, "I am saying all this that I am not saying that I am asking to abandon the reservation system and the upliftment efforts of the backward classes," he said, adding that instead of taking caste as the basis for reservation policy, it is better to take occupation and socioeconomic status as the basis, and it is better for those who are in need. It should be useful. Not stopping there, he also said that there was no caste in ancient India, the color system promoted in the Bhagavad Gita was based on occupation, and it was mistakenly interpreted as a caste system. He said that post-independence efforts to establish a caste-free system were hampered by the reservation system, which strengthened caste divisions. He also described reservation as a privilege. Finally, this judgment also suggests that it is better to exclude people and families who have once experienced reservation from reservation.
The contentions of the petitioners leading to this judgment are vast, but broadly speaking there are six:
1. Sub-classification is necessary to give adequate representation to a sub-caste.
2. As the earlier Indra Sawhney case judgment upheld the classification, which was struck down in the Chinnaiah judgment, the Indra Sawhney judgment is not applicable here.
3. The state government alone can tell more about how backward a community is and how much it needs positive measures. It is not correct to narrowly define Article 341 of the Constitution and deny that right to the State Government.
4. Article 16 (4) of the Constitution allows for the sub-category of providing special protections to under-represented groups which is not contrary to the principle of equality.
5. A distinction must be made between asking to exclude the creamy layer and asking to give preference to certain aggregates.
6. While the detailed statistical details given by the Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission provide adequate basis for sub-classification, the Evan Chinnayya judgment ignores those details.
One of the key points contained in the judgment is that 'Scheduled Castes cannot be treated as a single group' which highlights the diversity and diversity of our society. And that is to be welcomed. But at the same time we have to think whether it will become a hindrance to the unity of the oppressed which should be formed even in the distant future.
The second main point involved in the judgment is more serious. It is alarming that the four judges declared that the principle of creamy layer on economic criteria can be applied to SCs and STs as in the case of Other Backward Classes (OBCs), even without asking. No matter how many exceptions are made that the opinion is not a judgement, that they are sharing their thoughts and not telling them to implement it, there is a doubt whether these opinions will be useful in the future to dilute the reservations and lift the reservations for some.
The debate on social backwardness was also held in the Constituent Assembly. Social backwardness is recognized because of the evil practice of untouchability, which hinders educational and social opportunities. The framers of the constitution were of the opinion that although the scheduled castes have an opportunity for economic and educational uplift due to reservation, the community has not got an opportunity for social upliftment. Therefore, even if a small group can increase the economic and educational level, it is not possible to increase the social level, so it is thought that the principle of creamy layer does not apply. But there are also counterarguments that individuals, families, and society as a whole who have achieved such upward mobility may stand in the way of achieving those opportunities.
Against this backdrop, the judgment raises a bevy of questions as to what economic criteria should be considered to determine the creamy layer. That debate may be more intense than the Mala-Madiga debate of the last thirty years.
More importantly, the implementation of this new ruling requires the first accurate census to be taken. We need specific statistics and indicators of which sub-caste population is large, which sub-caste is in which economic, educational and social status. Even if the reason for not conducting the 2021 census is Covid, it is not clear whether this government will actually conduct the census or postpone it till 2031 on some pretext because it is linked to the caste census which it does not want to conduct. In that situation, the classification will have to be done based on the 2011 statistics only. It is unlikely to be accurate or reliable.
Even so, the quality of the public education sector has completely fallen and the classification of reservation in the education sector, government jobs, jobs in public sector industries and organizations are decreasing day by day, the question remains whether the classification of job reservation can really do any good for the most backward sections.
In the course of the MRPS movement, on the one hand, the leadership adopted a move to approach the ruling parties to garner support for the demand while holding agitations in the public sphere. In that order it is also a part of electoral politics bargaining. It started going around anti-Dalit and anti-oppressed ruling parties with the attitude that we will meet with anyone if our only demand is upheld. In that order, MRPS became close with all ruling parties like Congress, Telugu Desam, Telangana Rashtra Samiti and YSRCP. Finally, the Sangh Parivar, a humanist party that is completely against Dalit existence, is also forging an alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party. It has reached the point of praising and supporting the Hindutva, Brahminical and fascist forces which are completely against the pluralism, diversity and coexistence philosophy of our society.
In its thirty years of history, has there ever been a time to suspect that a great group which has built and expanded an unprecedented mass movement and even succeeded in material aspirations has failed ideologically, or will? How to understand this complexity of material success-ideological defeat?
