Reservation redistribution

The gains of reservation — despite its goal of driving equity — have flowed unequally. The dominance of some groups arising from various factors has been clear for some time now and, in the process, the marginalisation of other communities has become entrenched. It is this unmooring of reservation that the Supreme Court has tried to set right by upholding sub-categorisation within the quotas for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). The apex court overruled its own 2004 judgment in EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, in which it had held such sub-categorisation was unconstitutional.

The 6:1 majority verdict recognises the heterogeneity within the reserved categories. Relative social privilege and political clout have led to a few groups enjoying almost all the benefits of reservations while others languish in backwardness that is largely unchanged since Independence. To illustrate, the Jatavs in Uttar Pradesh (UP) and the Mahars in Maharashtra have long been the most visible beneficiaries of reservation within the states’ SC population, thanks to their political heft, at the cost of smaller groups such as Pasis and Balmikis in UP, and Mangs in Maharashtra. And, among tribes, Santhals in Odisha, West Bengal and Jharkhand have a history of accessing reservation which outstrips that of other tribal communities by leagues. This is because Santhals have much higher literacy rates than other tribal groups, having taken to modern education since the 1960s, and, therefore, are more aware of the rights and benefits carved out for STs. The reserved categories’ heterogeneity is mirrored in the strata-within-stratum manner in which caste discrimination operates. This reality has long been recognised by the states, and few have used sub-categorisation as redress. While Dravidian politics in Tamil Nadu made it a lodestone for social justice, Punjab, where a third of the population is SC, created a 50% quota within SC reservation for two of its most oppressed SC communities. The EV Chinaiah judgment, however, was used to block attempts by states to address the unremedied backwardness of certain groups. Thus, Thursday’s judgment paves the way for states to focus on uplifting the more marginalised communities among those eligible for SC/ST reservations, apportioning quotas within the quotas based on empirical and rational criteria.

A string of concurrent judgments also called for setting a creamy layer limit to SC/ST reservations, seeking to expand a concept hitherto limited to Other Backward Classes (OBC). Since the Court hasn’t laid out any strict criteria, it’ll be up to the states to look into the advisory, though political and social opposition to such barriers will be intense.

The consequences of the verdict are likely to be sweeping and immediate. The judgment needs to be operationalised in a manner that allows for the most marginalised groups to benefit the most, but it is hard to ignore the reality that reservation has long been used as a political tool. Already, some states such as Telangana have said they’ll institute sub-quotas for communities such as Madigas, fulfilling a long-pending demand. It is only to be expected that parties will use quotas to lure smaller groups — after all, the Dalit vote is no longer homogenous.

Along with the Justice G Rohini commission — created to examine sub-categorisation of OBC reservation — this verdict has the potential to create new political paradigms.

Unlock a world of Benefits with HT! From insightful newsletters to real-time news alerts and a personalized news feed – it’s all here, just a click away! –Login Now!