Exploring Dr. Ambedkar's Influence On Justice Gavai's Judgment In Caste Sub-Classification Case

In his judgment allowing sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs), Justice BR Gavai of the Supreme Court drew extensively on the views of Dr. BR Ambedkar to address concerns and validate the decision.

The judgment extensively references Ambedkar's thoughts on social justice, equality, and the upliftment of disadvantaged groups, using them as a foundation to support the permissibility of sub-classification within SCs.

The judgment begins by quoting Ambedkar's warning from his Constituent Assembly speech on November 25, 1949, that political democracy alone is insufficient and must be accompanied by social democracy, which upholds liberty, equality, and fraternity as core principles.

“He pointed out the contradictions in the country about the social and economic structure. He warned that if we continue to deny equality in social and economic life for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. He therefore appealed to the nation to remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment. He warned that if we do not do so, those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which the Constituent Assembly had so laboriously built up”, Justice Gavai highlighted.

Justice Gavai relied on various speeches and works of Ambedkar, emphasizing Ambedkar's belief that the removal of untouchability was a crucial aspect of nation-building and fraternity. “Dr. Ambedkar was of the view that if untouchables come out of that stigma and participate in nation-building, they will only contribute to the progress of the nation. He was of the view that the movement for removal of untouchability is in true sense a movement for nation-building and fraternity,” Justice Gavai highlighted.

Historical context and Ambedkar's activism

Justice Gavai noted that at one stage, caste discrimination had surpassed even racial discrimination and slave trade globally. He recounted how certain castes were subjected to inhuman treatment by upper classes, denied basic rights, and forced into degrading conditions. Justice Gavai referenced Ambedkar's 1919 testimony before the Southborough Committee, which exposed systematic exclusion of untouchables from employment and public services. This testimony included examples of discrimination such as refusal to buy from untouchable traders and exclusion from military and police services.

Ambedkar's activism, including the Mahad Satyagraha of 1927 and the Kalaram Temple Satyagraha, is cited to illustrate his relentless efforts to secure equal rights for the marginalized.

Ambedkar's views on equality and reservation

The judgment underscored Ambedkar's belief that the struggle against untouchability was fundamentally a struggle for equality. Ambedkar argued that public property and resources should not be monopolized by upper castes and that untouchables had an inherent right to access them. Justice Gavai referred to Anurag Bhaskar's book “The Foresighted Ambedkar,” which highlighted that Ambedkar dismissed the notion that untouchables should wait for upper castes to willingly grant them rights, instead calling for active efforts to secure these rights through legal and social reforms.

Justice Gavai referred to Ambedkar's speeches during the drafting of the Constitution, particularly his views on Article 16, which guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment. Ambedkar acknowledged the need for reservations to ensure representation of historically marginalized communities but emphasized that such reservations should not undermine the principle of equality, Justice Gavai noted.

“Dr. Ambedkar states that the equality of opportunity as specified in clause (1) has to be reconciled with the demand made by certain communities. He states that on account of historical reasons, the administration has been controlled by one community or a few communities, that such a situation should disappear and that the others also must have an opportunity of getting into the public services. However, he states that if the demand of such communities, in full, is accepted, it will destroy the first principle of equality guaranteed in clause (1)…He therefore advocates for confinement of reservation to a minority of seats”, Justice Gavai added, referring to Dr. Ambedkar's speech on November 30, 1948 on Article 16.

Justice Gavai highlighted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the State must resort to compensatory action for the purpose of making people who are factually unequal in their wealth, education or social environment, equal in specified areas.

Disparity in reservation benefits among SCs

Justice Gavai cited the Justice Usha Mehra Commission Report, which revealed that despite a Presidential List comprising 60 Scheduled Castes, only 4 or 5 communities had availed of reservation benefits in Andhra Pradesh. In Punjab, the Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, constituting 41.9% of the SC population, were underrepresented in public employment relative to their population percentage.

The identification of SCs and STs is constitutionally defined under Articles 341 and 342 which contain the Presidential Lists, with any changes requiring parliamentary approval.

Justice Gavai emphasized the state's duty to give preferential treatment to underrepresented backward classes, observing that this approach does not amount to altering the Presidential List, provided the state does not allocate 100% reservation to specific SC categories to the exclusion of others, which would effectively delete other categories from the Presidential List, a power reserved for Parliament.

Justice Gavai further pointed out the historical and varied levels of inhuman treatment faced by different SC categories. He asserted that SCs do not form a homogeneous group, and sub-classification addresses these historical disparities. Thus, he concluded that the decision in EV Chinnaiah v. State of AP which held that sub-classification is not permissible was incorrect.

On misuse of Sub-Classification for political gain

Ambedkar opined that the identification of backward communities should be left to local governments, with the courts having the power to review such decisions. Justice Gavai cited this to support his stance that state should have the power to sub-classify SC based on empirical data showing varying levels of backwardness or representation.

Justice Gavai rejected the argument that sub-classification could be misused for political gain, citing Dr. Ambedkar's foresight regarding such challenges.

He cited Ambedkar's speech in the Constituent Assembly on November 30, 1948, wherein Ambedkar foresaw that if local governments allocated an excessively large number of seats for reservations, it could be challenged in the court.

Justice Gavai observed “Dr. Ambedkar had foreseen such a difficulty. In his speech in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said that 'backward community' will have to be left to be determined by each local government… he observed that it would be a justiciable matter. He stated that if the local Government included in this category of reservations such a large number of seats, one could very well go to the Federal Court and the Supreme Court and say that the reservation is of such a magnitude that the rule regarding equality of opportunity has been destroyed and the court will then come to the conclusion whether the local Government or the State Government has acted in a reasonable and prudent manner.”

Justice Gavai pointed out that the issues Ambedkar foresaw regarding the identification of backward classes and the extent of reservations have already led to extensive litigation in India over the past seven decades. He extrapolated to the present issue Ambedkar's reasoning that the remedy of judicial review will take care of any government granting reservation that violates equality of opportunity.

Reasonable classification inherent under Articles 14 and 16

Justice Gavai emphasized that reasonable classification is inherent within Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and sub-classification among SCs can be evaluated by the court based on its reasonableness. He stated, “The result of classification would be to provide more preferential treatment to this more disadvantageous and less represented group. The ultimate object would be to achieve real equality among all the sub-groups in the larger group.” Such classifications must be supported by empirical data proving that the subgroup requires special treatment due to its disadvantaged status, he emphasized.

He cited the judgment in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India, in which Justice Krishna Iyer, referring to Dr. Ambedkar's Constituent Assembly speech on November 25, 1949, observed that equality is a dynamic concept, and Articles 14 to 16 contain the doctrine of classification and equal treatment to all who fall within each class.

In addressing the opposition to sub-classification within the Presidential List, Justice Gavai compared it to individuals who, after struggling to enter a general compartment of a train, prevent others from entering once inside.

He compared such opposition to what oppressor castes have done to less privileged castes stating, “In fact, what the people belonging to the categories who are availing of large chunk of reservations and denying a special treatment to the less privileged among them are doing, is what the people from the higher castes have done to these people for centuries as a result of which backward classes were kept away from the mainstream of society for ages, for no fault of theirs.”

He asserted that those who have already benefited from reservations should not obstruct efforts to extend those benefits to more disadvantaged subgroups.

Applicability of principle of creamy layer to SCs

While Ambedkar did not talk about the concept of creamy layer among SCs specifically, Justice Gavai advocated for making the principle applicable to SC citing Ambedkar's observation in his book “What Gandhi and Congress have done to Untouchables”. He referred to Ambedkar's observation that economic interests often override ethical considerations, and vested interests rarely relinquish their advantages without external pressure.

He stressed the disparities between children of high-ranking officers belonging to SC communities and those of disadvantaged SC members, arguing that treating them equally under reservations would defeat the purpose of achieving real equality. He urged the State to develop a policy to identify the creamy layer within SCs and STs to ensure only the truly disadvantaged benefit from affirmative action, thereby achieving real equality as envisioned by the Constitution.

Justice Gavai observed that the Constitution recognizes SCs and STs as the most backward sections of society, and the criteria for excluding individuals from affirmative action within these groups may differ from those applicable to other classes.

He noted that individuals from these categories who achieve lower-level positions, such as peons or sweepers, would still be considered socially, economically, and educationally backward. Conversely, he highlighted, those who have benefited from reservations and reached higher positions should no longer be deemed backward and should relinquish the benefits of affirmative action to allow more deserving individuals to benefit.

Justice Gavai concluded that sub-classification among SCs for more beneficial treatment is permissible, provided it is justified with empirical data, and that the creamy layer principle applies to SCs and STs, with criteria for exclusion potentially differing from those for other classes.

Case Details: State Of Punjab and Ors. v. Davinder Singh and Ors.; C.A. No. 2317/2011

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 538

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.