By James Dkhar
In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court has shattered the long-held assumption that Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) are a homogeneous group. This decision has far-reaching implications for the country’s reservation policies. It has the potential to reshape the way India approaches reservation and affirmative action. The court’s decision stems from a long-standing debate over whether sub-categorizing SCs/STs groups is constitutional. Some argued it would lead to exclusion, while others saw it as a necessary step towards true equality.
The journey to this landmark ruling began in 2004, when the Supreme Court appeared to shut down the possibility of sub-categorization within SCs/STs groups, suggesting that it would infringe upon the President’s powers. However, the current bench has now revisited this decision, clarifying that sub-categorization does not, in fact, encroach upon the President’s powers under Article 341, which grants the President the authority to modify the list of SCs and STs.
The Supreme Court has now given the green light to sub-categorization, citing the need for “substantive equality”. This means that instead of treating all SCs/STs groups as one, the government can now recognize and address the unique challenges faced by each sub-group. The court held that SCs/STs community is not a homogeneous class but comprising diverse groups with unique challenges. Historical and social parameters clearly demonstrate this heterogeneity. By acknowledging this diversity, the court has empowered states to subcategorize SCs and STs, enabling targeted reservations in jobs and education. This move is a significant step towards achieving “substantive equality of opportunity”. Sub-categorization will no longer be seen as a threat to the SCs/STs list, but rather as a tool to ensure that all groups receive equitable benefits.
The Supreme Court’s verdict serves as a beacon of hope for marginalized communities. It is a reminder that true equality can only be achieved by acknowledging and addressing the diverse challenges faced by these groups.
The court has also emphasized the power of the State to sub-categorize, citing Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. However, it allows the state to make special provisions for the advancement of women, children, social and economic backward classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes. Article 16 states that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of public employment. The State may, however, make provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of backward classes, including the SCs and STs, which are not adequately represented in the services under the State. This power, however, comes with a caveat – sub-categorization must not lead to exclusion or discrimination.
But what does this mean in practice? For starters, it means that sub-categorization must be based on solid evidence and can’t lead to any group being left behind. The court has laid down clear guidelines for sub-categorization, emphasizing the need for an intelligible differentia and a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. In other words, sub-classification must be based on empirical evidence and a clear understanding of the levels of backwardness within each group.
The Supreme Court has identified two crucial components – purpose and rational basis. Inadequacy of representation in services and the need for “effective” representation must drive sub-categorization. Socio-economic backwardness and disadvantage can be a criterion for sub-categorization. The Supreme Court explicitly made it clear that the sub-categorization within the SCs and STs communities should not be misinterpreted as creating further divisions or hierarchies.
Instead, the court emphasized that sub-categorization is a strategic tool to reach the most marginalized and disadvantaged groups within these categories. This clarification is a crucial step in ensuring that the affirmative action policy is implemented in the right spirit. By emphasizing a need-based approach the court guaranteed that affirmative action is directed towards those who have faced the most socio-economic challenges and historical discrimination. This nuance approach promotes inclusivity, recognizing that even within marginalized communities, there are varying levels of disadvantage. It is like acknowledging that within a single room, some people are closer to the door than others. The court’s decision strives to address these disparities with precision, ensuring that the most vulnerable are not left behind.
Now that the Supreme Court’s judgment has brought clarity to the sub-categorization within the SCs and STs, it is intriguing to explore and speculate its implications for Meghalaya, a state with a unique social fabric. Meghalaya has maintained a cautious approach to reservation, adhering to a long-standing status quo on the issue and avoiding any significant alterations to the policy. However, the quota among the three major tribes has remained largely unchanged since gaining statehood.
The reservation policy has emerged as a critical and defining issue in Meghalaya’s political landscape. The ruling government, seemingly hesitant to rock the boat, has adopted a cautious approach, maintaining the status quo and attempting to delay any significant changes. However, the court ruling has potentially disrupted this strategy, leaving the government with a shrinking timeframe to act.
With a view on the future political landscape, the reservation policy is poised to become a breaking point that could irreparably damage the ruling parties’ reputation and credibility.
The writing is on the wall – if this issue is not addressed with urgency and sincerity, it may prove to be a catastrophic miscalculation.
The trend is clear – the people are eager for a resolution especially the Khasi and Jaintia community. The longer the government delays, the more likely it is that this issue will dominate the political discourse, potentially boosting the popularity of the Voice of the People Party (VVP) among the electorate, and increasing their chances of becoming the dominant political force in the state.
It is in the best interest of the ruling parties, and indeed the people of Meghalaya as a whole, to address this issue head-on and without delay. By doing so, they can turn a potentially divisive issue into a non-issue, freeing themselves to focus on other pressing matters that affect the state. The clock is ticking, the fate of the ruling parties, and the future of Meghalaya, may depend on it.
Now, amidst this reservation conundrum, where do the Garo community stand? Initially, their stance to maintain the status quo may have been due to their own interest, but it was also rooted in the constitutional assumption that the Schedule Tribe classification was a homogeneous group. However, the court verdict has overturned this assumption, revealing the heterogeneity within the Schedule Tribe classification.
In light of this new precedent, it would be reasonable to expect the Garo community to reassess their position and consider the implications of the verdict. Nevertheless, if they continue this advocacy for the status quo, it implies a startling assertion – that their community is devoid of discrimination and inequality, existing as a utopian paradise where every individual enjoys equal opportunities and uniform growth and development.
In reality, every society is a complex tapestry of diverse experiences, socio-economic disparities, and unequal access to resources. The Garo districts, like any other region, are home to myriad stories – of struggle and triumph, of marginalization and empowerment. If they continue clinging to the status quo, the Garo community risks ignoring the very real challenges faced by their own people. They risk turning a blind eye to the disparities that exist within their own society, and the opportunities that are being denied to certain sections of their community.
Will the Garo community acknowledge the complex realities within their own society and strive to build a more just and equitable future for all? The decision is theirs, but its impact will reverberate through generations to come.
As Justice Gavi aptly noted in the judgment, “Putting the children of parents from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who, on account of benefit of reservation, have reached a high position and ceased to be socially, economically, and educationally backward, and the children of parents doing manual work in the villages in the same category, would defeat the constitutional mandate”. When the same opportunities are offered to communities with different levels of advantage, it can aggravate existing inequalities. Justice Gavi’s statement is self-explanatory regarding sub-categorization.
Notably, the concept of the “creamy layer” is an advisory guideline, not a legally binding directive. Furthermore, as highlighted by Nath, “the criteria for exclusion of creamy layer for the purpose of affirmative action for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes could be different from the criteria as applicable to the Other Backward Classes”.
Coming back to the political landscape, the court verdict on sub-categorization has ignited a new dimension in the reservation policy. The VPP has been vocal in advocating for change, while other parties have remained silent. However, the verdict may now prompt other parties to re-examine their stance. The Congress party, known for advocating for the poor and marginalized, is likely to join the chorus, making it difficult to imagine they won’t embrace the Supreme Court’s verdict.
The VPP’s reputation as a party for the poor and a crusader against corruption may resonate deeply with the Garo people. However, to truly make a mark, the party must balance the interests of all communities, including the Garo. By clarifying that re-examining the reservation policy is in the best interest of the Garo community, the VPP can dispel misunderstandings and build trust. With the Supreme Court’s guidelines rooted in the Constitution, any changes will prioritize the well-being of all communities. Especially, the reservation policy is a shared and common interest for all the people of Meghalaya, transcending party lines and community divisions.
To reemphasize, the Supreme Court’s guidelines require empirical evidence to support any changes in the reservation policy. So, as we navigate this complex issue, we must proceed cautiously. The evidence may reveal unexpected truths that challenge our preconceptions. It is essential to acknowledge that the data might not align with anticipated outcomes or societal expectations. In such instances, we must exercise prudence and approach the results with respect and impartiality. Ultimately, our decisions should be driven by a steadfast commitment to social justice and equality rather than emotional responses.
In conclusion, Meghalaya’s reservation policy has been a topic of careful consideration, given the diverse tribal communities that inhabit the state. The question remains – will Meghalaya continue to maintain its status quo, or will the Supreme Court’s judgment pave the way for a new approach to reservation, one that addresses the unique needs and disparities within the state’s tribal communities? It is a delicate balancing act, but one that could lead to more targeted and effective affirmative action policies.