Supreme Court verdict on sub-classification: How CJI underlined substantive equality

Sub: Polity

Sec : Constitution

Context:

In a landmark judgment, a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court on August 1 reframed how the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) quota may operate for the very first time since reservations were introduced in the Constitution in 1950.

More on the news?

In a 6:1 ruling, the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud permitted states to create sub-classifications within the SC and ST categories for the purpose of wider protections to the most backward communities within these categories.
This judgment overturns the apex court’s 2004 decision in E V Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh, in which it had held that the SC/ST list is a “homogenous group” that cannot be divided further.

What is Substantive equality?

Substantive equality is a substantive law on human rights that is concerned with equality of outcome for disadvantaged and marginalized people and groups and generally all subgroups in society.
Substantive equality recognizes that the law must take elements such as discrimination, marginalization, and unequal distribution into account in order to achieve equal results for basic human rights.
It derives primarily from Marxists and Communists.
Substantive equality is distinct from formal equal opportunity, which ensures equal opportunity based on meritocracy, but not equal outcomes for subgroups.
Substantive equality can include affirmative action and quota systems including gender quotas and racial quotas.
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.

Reservation as facet of Equality:

Reservation is a form of positive discrimination, created to promote equality among marginalized sections, so as to protect them from social and historical injustice.
Generally, it means giving preferential treatment to marginalized sections of society in employment and access to education.

Reservation as limiting Efficiency:

Article 335 of the Constitution, which provides for reservation for SCs and STs in services and posts, states that the reservation must be taken consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration.
In the discourse on reservation in the Supreme Court that put emphasis on “maintaining efficiency of service”, reservation was effectively seen as being detrimental to “efficiency”, while “merit” was equated with efficiency.
In the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment, the SC held that reservations in promotions would dilute efficiency in administration.
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.