The Supreme Court’s landmark verdict in ‘The State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh’ (2024) advanced the principle of substantive equality, reshaping the interpretation of reservation laws for SCs and STs.
- In a string of rulings given over the last seven years, CJI Chandrachud has referred to substantive equality to stress that reservation is a facet of merit, and not an exception to the merit rule.
Substantive Equality
- About: Substantive Equality recognises that different individuals or groups may need different levels of support and intervention to achieve real equality in outcomes. It aims to address historical and systemic disadvantages by considering the unique backgrounds and specific needs of marginalised or disadvantaged groups
- For example, in the context of reservations and affirmative action, it might mean creating sub-categories within SC/ST quotas to ensure that benefits reach the most disadvantaged segments within these communities.
Enroll now for UPSC Online Course
Formal Equality Vs Substantive Equality
- Definition:
- Formal Equality: Treats everyone the same under the law.
- Substantive Equality: Aims to address and correct actual disparities to achieve fair outcomes.
- Application:
- Formal Equality: Enforces uniform rules and protections.
- Substantive Equality: Implements measures like affirmative action to address inequalities.
- Objective:
- Formal Equality: Ensures equal treatment in principle.
- Substantive Equality: Ensures equitable outcomes by considering individual circumstances and systemic disadvantages.
|
- Emphasis on: The principle emphasises achieving fair outcomes rather than just providing equal treatment.
- Addressing Historical Injustices: It recognizes and seeks to rectify past injustices and ongoing inequalities by providing targeted support and interventions.
Evolution of Supreme Court’s View on Reservation
-
Initial Limiting Approach
- Formal and Limiting Stance (1951)
- State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951): The Supreme Court initially took a formal and limiting approach and viewed reservations as an exception to equal opportunity.
- The Supreme Court held that the reservation of seats in educational institutions was unconstitutional due to lack of specific constitutional provision like Article 16(4) of the Constitution for public employment.
- B Venkataramana v. The State of Madras (1951): The Court restricted the definition of “backward classes” for reservations in public jobs to Harijans and backward Hindus.
Check Out UPSC CSE Books From PW Store
Sub-Categorisation within Castes:
- Sub Categorisation of Caste: It refers to further classifying broader caste groups into subgroups based on various criteria.
- Demand for Sub Categorisation of Caste: Some castes have sought recognition and specific privileges based on their unique characteristics, historical backgrounds, or socio-economic status.
- Past Attempts:
- 2004 Judgment: In E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004), the Supreme Court ruled that only Parliament has the authority to create and notify Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribes(ST) lists.
- 2020 Judgment: In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2020), the Court allowed States to decide the quantum of benefits within existing SC/ST lists but not to alter the lists themselves.
- Current Status: Recently, the Supreme Court upheld that states have the authority to subdivide reserved category groups based on their varying levels of backwardness to extend reservation benefits.
- In doing so, the apex court overturned a 2004 ruling in the EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh case.
|
-
- First Constitutional Amendment (1951)
- Insertion of Article 15(4): Article 15(4) essentially an exception to Article 29 that prohibits discrimination against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, language, or any of them with respect to admission into educational institutions.
- Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)
- Mandal Judgment: The Court upheld Articles 15(4) and 16(4) as special provisions, setting a 50% cap on reservations and continuing the view of reservations as exceptions to equality.
- In the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgement, the SC held that reservations in promotions would dilute efficiency in administration.
-
Transition to Substantive Equality
- M R Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962)
- Prescribing a 50% Ceiling: The Supreme Court set a 50% limit on reservations in educational institutions for the first time;
- This limit is contested but it has endured, with the exception of the 10% Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota introduced in 2019.
- State of Kerala v. N M Thomas (1975)
- Expansive Reading: The Court upheld relaxed qualifying criteria for SC/ST candidates in government jobs, viewing such measures as aligned with the principle of equality.
-
Balancing Efficiency and Reservation
- Article 335 and Efficiency (1992)
- Article 335: Requires that reservations for SCs and STs in services and posts be implemented in a way that maintains the “efficiency of administration.”
- Reservations in Promotions: The Court initially viewed reservations in promotions as potentially undermining administrative efficiency. While “merit” (unreserved posts) was equated with efficiency.
- The 1995 Constitutional Amendment (Article 16(4A)) allowed reservations in promotions and introduced the concept of consequential seniority.
- Constitution (Seventy-seventh) Amendment Act, 1995
- Consequential Seniority: The Constitution (Seventy-seventh) Amendment Act, 1995 inserted Article 16(4A) to allow “consequential seniority”, which meant that the seniority attained by a reserved-category candidate over his peer in the general category by being promoted earlier would be retained for the next promotion.
- The law on consequential seniority was upheld in 2006 on the ground that the efficiency of administration was only relaxed, not “obliterated”, by the rule.
Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes
-
Reframing the Reservation-Merit Debate
- Repudiation of Reservation-Merit Binary
- Quota-Versus-Efficiency question: Recent rulings have challenged the binary view of reservation versus merit.
- The Chief Justice of India (CJI) argues that reservation is integral to substantive equality and not a mere concession.
- He argued that achieving higher marks in exams does not necessarily equate to higher efficiency; instead, meeting a minimum mark is sufficient to maintain effective administration.
-
Recent Interpretation
-
- Substantive Equality Emphasis: CJI Chandrachud’s rulings reflect a shift towards understanding reservations as essential to achieving substantive equality, aligning with the broader constitutional mandate to address historical disadvantages and ensure fair outcomes.
August 5, 2024
