Font size:
Print
Substantive Equality
Context:
- The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the sub-classification of SC and ST quotas marked a significant advancement in equality jurisprudence.
- Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in a 6-1 majority opinion, emphasised “substantive equality,” arguing that reservations should be seen as part of merit rather than an exception.
- Over the past seven years, CJI Chandrachud has consistently highlighted this perspective, reinforcing that reservations are integral to achieving true equality.
Historical Supreme Court Views on Reservations:
- Formal and Limiting Approach:
- Initially, the Court viewed reservations as exceptions to equality.
- For instance, in The State of Madras vs. Champakam Dorairajan (1951), reservations in educational institutions were deemed unconstitutional.
- This led to the first constitutional amendment introducing Article 15(4), allowing reservations in education.
- In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), reservations under Article 15(4) and 16(4) were seen as special provisions, capped at 50% of total seats.
Reservations as a Facet of Equality:
- M R Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962) introduced a 50% ceiling for reservations in educational institutions.
- In State of Kerala v. N M Thomas (1975), the Court upheld relaxed qualifying criteria for SC/ST candidates, viewing it as part of substantive equality.
Balancing Efficiency and Reservation:
- Article 335: Mandates that reservations for SCs and STs in services must maintain “efficiency of administration,”.
- In the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgement, the Supreme Court initially viewed reservations in promotions as potentially undermining administrative efficiency, equating “merit” with efficiency.
- The 1995 Constitutional Amendment, known as the 77th Amendment Act, introduced Article 16(4A) into the Indian Constitution.
- This amendment permits reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in public employment and establishes “consequential seniority,” allowing seniority gained through earlier promotions to be retained for future promotions.
- 2006 Upholding: The law on consequential seniority was upheld, noting that it relaxed but did not obliterate administrative efficiency.
|
Current Reframing by CJI D.Y Chandrachud:
|
