The Supreme Court Ruling on ST/ST Reservation in India and Its Political Implications
Affirmative action discussions in the nation have been sparked by the recent Supreme Court ruling in the State of Punjab and Ors v. Davinder Singh and Ors, which deals with Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The ruling has significant political ramifications. Two concepts were introduced by the seven-judge bench ruling, which was split 6-1: first, that Scheduled Castes are not a homogenous group and can be classified for reservations; and second, that by imposing the creamy layer principle based on economic criteria, SCs, and STs can be equated to “other backward classes.”
The Power Dynamics: Upper Caste Control and Marginalization of SCs and STs
Important institutions of power and prestige in the nation are still controlled by upper castes even after 77 years of independence, pushing Dalits, Adivasis, and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) to the periphery. Paradoxically, the Supreme Court noted in its recent decision that some Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) have profited more than others. As a result, the nation’s reservation policy needs to be subdivided.
The Challenges in Implementing Reservation Policies
On the surface, the judges considered the concerns of several marginalized SC and ST social groups. On the other hand, disputes and social unrest among Dalits may result from the ruling. To secure the involvement of historically marginalized groups in the process of nation-building, the Indian state has cultivated the image of being the protector of the impoverished and social outcasts. It has also formulated social justice programs to support these efforts. However, efforts by the state to provide reservation rules for Adivasis and Dalits have not succeeded in creating diversity inside contemporary institutions.
A quick examination of the state’s implementation of the reservation policy would show that it is being done poorly. The reserved positions are unfilled in several areas. Government service positions designated for Groups A and B frequently go unfilled; “candidate not found suitable” is frequently given as the explanation. Nonetheless, the Court failed to recommend changes that would have made the implementation process more equitable and inclusive.
Political Reactions: Divided Opinions on the Creamy Layer Concept
When Dalit and tribal political groups opposed the implementation of a creamy layer provision first, the arguments became more intense. The ruling was condemned by Chandrashekhar Azad’s Azad Samaj Party, Rajkumar Roat’s Bharat Adivasi Party, Chirag Paswan’s Lok Janshakti Party, and Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party. The key leaders of Jitan Ram Manjhi’s Hindustani Awam Morcha and the Congress parties of Telangana and Karnataka greeted the Supreme Court’s decision with immediate gratification. The Telugu Desam Party followed suit, establishing a subclassification system for Dalits in 2000. Congress eventually said that it would not support subclassification and that the SC and ST communities would be destroyed by the application of the creamy layer principle. Leaders of the Samajwadi Party also rejected it.
The Impact of Economic Liberalization on Marginalized Groups
The Court has failed to consider the fact that, since liberalization, the number of government posts has decreased and contract services are now the norm in the public sector. The capitalist class has disregarded the call for social justice, and the state’s role in the economy has decreased. Dalits, Adivasis, and OBCs are therefore only marginally represented in economic progress. They labor in the informal sector or gig economy for meager pay. Their role as top entrepreneurs, unicorn start-up founders, or members of the IT industry in the neo-liberal economy is negligible. Government rules and guidelines do not oblige market leaders to assist socially marginalized groups in their participation in capitalist development.
The Court’s View on Reservation as Economic Mobility: A Narrow Perspective
It appears that the Court views reservation as a tool for achieving economic mobility. It ignores an important socioeconomic fact: Dalits face violence and discrimination in society. The deeper issue of economic inequality and social exclusion seems to have been approached by the Supreme Court using mechanist reasoning. Confusion has been caused by the bench’s sectional reference to the creamy-layer requirement.
Policies about social justice shouldn’t be complicated by including programs for class mobility or employment distribution. They are a component of an ethical vision to create an inclusive economy in which historically marginalized social groups play a larger role as important players in ownership, management, and production. It appears that most recent talks about reservations have ignored this point. The Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the subclassification of SCs and STs also demonstrates this slippage.
Conclusion: Strengthening Reservation Policies for True Inclusion
Legislators ought to support diversification by advocating for measures that make it possible for more Dalits, Adivasis, and OBCs to head businesses, start businesses, and develop new technologies. This will guarantee a significant democratization of the economy and include the vast majority of people in India’s progress. Everyone must benefit from the neo-liberal economy’s gains in wealth, privileges, and power, rather than just a select few. For Dalits, Adivasis, and OBCs to be able to participate in India’s economic development, the reservation policy must be strengthened.