PANACEA OR PANDORA'S BOX?

THE SUPREME COURT'S RECENT VERDICT ALLOWING SUBCLASSIFICATION WITHIN SCS/ STS HAS SET OFF A DEBATE ON WHETHER RESERVATIONS LEAD TO TRUE SOCIAL EQUITY OR GET REDUCED TO A TOOL IN THE HANDS OF POLITICAL PARTIES SEEKING TO PROFIT FROM VOTE BANK POLITICS

- KAUSHIK DEKA

ON August 1, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment redefining the framework of affirmative action. In a 6:1 majority ruling, a seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud allowed states to create subclassifications within the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). The aim is to ensure a more equitable distribution of reservation benefits among the most backward communities within these categories. Acknowledging that SC/STs are not homogeneous, the apex court recognised the varying degrees of social and educational backwardness among these communities. It has in effect now allowed states to further demarcate reservations for specific castes within the 15 per cent reservation earmarked for all SCs and 7.5 per cent for all STs. This ruling overturns the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that the SC/ST list was a homogeneous group that couldn't be subdivided. The 2024 judgment supports the argument that reservation benefits have not equally reached all castes and that more vulnerable groups need a fixed share within the reservation framework.

While there is enough research to support this argument, the fear is that the political class may exploit the well-intentioned ruling to cultivate vote banks. The verdict has already received mixed reactions from political parties, irrespective of their affiliation to either the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) or the Opposition Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA).