Sub-classification verdict through Ambedkar’s ideals Premium

The Supreme Court verdict in The State of Punjab and Ors. vs Davinder Singh and Ors., on sub-classification of reservations is a noteworthy development in jurisprudence, especially in social justice

The Supreme Court of India judgment, on August 1, 2024, in The State of Punjab and Ors. vs Davinder Singh and Ors., on the sub-classification of reservations, embodies the vision of social jurisprudence. It is a noteworthy development in Indian jurisprudence, especially in social justice. The judgment provides social jurisprudence using constitutional methods and ensures that social justice reaches the most neglected and deprived sections (which includes a majority of Dalit castes) among Dalits. The idea of sub-classification also aligns with B.R. Ambedkar’s principles of fraternity and Maitri, emphasising the need for cooperation and mutual respect among Scheduled Castes (SC). However, the overreaching exercise of the judgment, reflected in the comments on the varna system and creamy layer, is uncalled for.

B.R. Ambedkar struggled all his life to ensure social and civil justice for the most oppressed sections. He also sought to secure separate cultural rights for former untouchables. Yet, these were often met with inadequate responses and resistance from the prevailing Hindu caste order. While reflecting on the Indian social structure, Ambedkar highlights how every jati occupies a distinct position on the social ladder. It draws attention to the nuances of internal divisions within the caste order. A newspaper of his times reported Ambedkar’s response to “the welcome addresses by three scheduled castes’ organisations after the resolutions were disposed of at the Scheduled Castes’ Conference, held at Cawnpore on January 31[,] 1944… He (Ambedkar) urged that they (Scheduled Castes) must realise their responsibility to wipe out internal divisions among the Scheduled Castes when they demanded of other’s removal of Untouchability”.

His contribution to social justice goes beyond theoretical exercise. His practical measures to dismantle the caste hierarchy have been remarkable. He led movements such as the Mahad Satyagraha and the Kalaram temple entry movement, that highlighted the ritual discrimination faced by Dalits. Despite such efforts, Brahminical forces often undermined his quest for a just society. Yet, amid such challenges, Ambedkar’s perseverance in fighting for justice in a hierarchical society illustrates his deep commitment.

In a media interview, Shahu Patole, who wrote a book on Dalit food in Marathawada, observed that different jatis experience varying degrees of discrimination. While talking about his experiences in the village, he says that “Mang was considered the lowest, above them were the Mahars. Mang and Mahars were deemed untouchable by Chamars, and the rest of the villages did not touch these communities”. This affirms the existence of graded inequality, which Ambedkar also asserted in his sociological treatise.

These suggest the need for a more nuanced approach to social justice, which the Court’s sub-classification judgment seeks to address — at least partly. This judgment can be interpreted through Ambedkar’s social justice ideals. It underlines the existence of different lived realities of numerous jatis that experience levels of deprivation and discrimination. Thus, the judgment aims to mitigate the inequality within the SC community by addressing such heterogeneity. This is precisely where the judgment demonstrates the idea of social jurisprudence to the core because it takes into account the different sociological realities of every jati.

Even though it has still to be implemented in various States, the sub-classification decision has drawn criticism from some Dalit communities, especially from leading segments of Dalits who feel their political leverage might diminish. This fear results from the assumption that the sub-classification judgment might fragment the Dalit constituency and weaken the collective Dalit movement. Sadly, this argument also assumes that there is a single Dalit movement. In contrast, many sociological accounts show that there have always been different shades of Dalit politics, as reflected in the many Dalit movements.

However, this argument by the leading segments among Dalits discounts the underlying Ambedkarite consciousness of various shades of Dalit politics. In this context, 30 years of the Madiga Dandora movement are misrepresented as being detached from the sphere of an Ambedkarite consciousness. Even the movements and mobilisations of the Mang caste in Maharashtra have Ambedkar’s picture alongside that of Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe among other leaders. This symbolises how every caste’s issue may be different when they deal with other castes but are unified in the larger Ambedekarite idea of social justice.