On Thursday(1st August ), Supreme Court Justice Pankaj Mithal cited a 1961 letter by Jawahar Lal Nehru criticizing caste-based reservations and advocating for economic-based support. The Court also ruled that states can create sub-classifications within Scheduled Castes for targeted reservations to uplift more backward sub-castes.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court judge Justice Pankaj Mithal has advocated for a fresh examination of India’s reservation policies. Referring to a 1961 letter from former Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru, Justice Mithal highlighted Nehru’s concerns regarding the provision of reservations and privileges to specific castes or groups.
Justice Mithal emphasized Nehru’s viewpoint, stating-
In his June 27, 1961, letter to all state chief ministers, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru expressed regret over the practice of granting reservations and privileges to specific castes or groups. He argued that support should be based on economic need rather than caste, and while Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes deserve assistance, it should not come in the form of reservations, especially in services.
The Supreme Court, in a landmark verdict on Thursday(August 1st), affirmed that states hold constitutional authority to create sub-classifications within the Scheduled Castes, which form a socially heterogeneous category. This decision aims to facilitate the upliftment of those castes that are socially and educationally more disadvantaged.
In his letter, Nehru expressed a clear vision for the nation, stating-
“I want my country to excel in all areas. As soon as we start accepting second-rate standards, we are doomed.”
Nehru further elaborated on his stance against reservations, asserting-
“The best way to assist a backward group is by providing access to quality education, including technical training, which is increasingly important. Everything else serves merely as a temporary aid and does not contribute to lasting strength or improvement.”
Justice Mithal, while concurring with the majority verdict, noted that the history of reservation in India reflects the substantial efforts made by all three branches of the State to achieve social justice through the reservation policy.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court on Identifying ‘Creamy Layer’ in SC/STs| Justice Gavai Proposes Policy
He pointed out-
“Experience shows that processes for selection and appointments in government services, as well as admissions at higher levels, are frequently challenged in court due to alleged misapplication of reservation rules.”
He also highlighted the delays caused by litigation, stating-
“Often, appointments and admissions are delayed for years due to litigation, causing significant delays in recruitment and leaving vacancies unfilled. This leads to temporary or ad-hoc appointments, which in turn result in additional legal challenges.”
Justice Mithal noted the extensive time and energy spent by the State in perfecting the reservation process, remarking-
“Records show that both pro- and anti-reservation agitations have disrupted national peace and stability. Notably, during the anti-Mandal Commission protests in 1990, many states experienced widespread disturbances.”
Reflecting on the violent agitations, he said-
“The turmoil caused by these agitations and demonstrations, especially from August to November 1990, clearly indicates the widespread violence that occurred.”
Justice Mithal criticized the current basis of caste for upliftment, advocating for a focus on social and economic conditions instead.
He stated-
“This is why we now face the issue of sub-classifying castes for reservations. Experience shows that the more advantaged members of the backward classes often fill most of the reserved vacancies or seats, leaving the most disadvantaged with little to gain.”
The Supreme Court’s verdict revisits the 2004 five-judge constitution bench judgment in the case of EV Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh. In that case, it was held that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were homogeneous groups, and states could not further sub-classify them to grant quota within quota for more deprived and weaker castes in these groups.
