Source: The Indian Express

Introduction

In a landmark 6-1 verdict, the Supreme Court of India ruled on the sub-classification of Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) quotas, marking a significant development in equality jurisprudence. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, writing for the majority, emphasized the concept of "substantive equality," which recognizes the need to account for historical injustices and differing backgrounds when applying the law. This decision expands the scope of reservations, aiming to ensure benefits reach those most in need.

What is Equality of Opportunity?

• Article 16 of the Indian Constitution deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
• It aims to ensure that all citizens have an equal chance to be employed in government services, regardless of their background.
• The purpose of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is to ensure equality of opportunity of the socially backward classes, the criterion for sub-classification within a class (be it the Other Backward Classes or the Scheduled Castes or Tribes) must be an indicator of social backwardness
• Equality of opportunity was framed in the language of equal representation subject to these two caveats.
• Justice K K Mathew adopted a different approach.
  • A criterion which is relevant to the apportionment of the good (that is, services) must be adopted;
  • It must be determined if the relevant criterion leads to a priori exclusion of a certain class.
  • The State must identify if persons of all classes have an equal chance of satisfying the chosen criteria.
  • There is a violation of the right to equal opportunity if the relevant criterion leads to a priori exclusion.
    • In that case, a compensatory provision must be made to offset the disadvantage

What is Substantive Equality of Opportunity?

• The concept of substantive equality goes beyond formal equality by recognizing that treating everyone the same may not result in true equality due to historical disadvantages and social inequalities
  • Equal opportunity: Article 16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters of public employment.
  • Non-discrimination: Article 16(2) prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence.
  • Substantive equality: While the article ensures formal equality, it also provides for substantive equality through various provisions:
    • Article 16(4) allows reservations in favor of backward classes not adequately represented in state services.
    • Article 16(4A) permits reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
    • Article 16(4B) deals with carrying forward unfilled reserved vacancies.
  • Exceptions: The article also includes exceptions for certain positions, such as religious institutions or offices requiring specific qualifications.

What were the views of CJI DY Chandrachud on Substantive Equality of Opportunity?

• CJI Chandrachud emphasizes that the beneficiary classes under Articles 16(4) and 15(4) of the Indian Constitution are fundamentally aimed at addressing social backwardness.
• He asserts that the primary objective of these constitutional provisions is to ensure substantive equality of opportunity for socially backward communities, rather than mere formal equality.
• The Chief Justice interprets that the beneficiary class in Article 16(4), which pertains to reservations in public employment, effectively encompasses the socially and educationally backward classes mentioned in Article 15(4), which deals with educational reservations.
• CJI Chandrachud views affirmative action, including sub-classification within reserved categories, to achieve substantive equality of opportunity for backward classes.
• He recognizes the state's authority to sub-classify within backward classes, particularly based on factors such as inadequate representation of certain castes or groups.
• However, the Chief Justice emphasizes that the state bears the burden of establishing that any inadequacy in representation is directly linked to the backwardness of the caste or group in question.
• This interpretation suggests a nuanced understanding of backwardness, acknowledging that it can vary even within broadly defined backward classes.
• CJI Chandrachud's view implies that substantive equality requires going beyond blanket categorizations and addressing specific disadvantages faced by sub-groups within backward classes.
• His approach advocates for a more refined and targeted application of affirmative action measures to address varying degrees of backwardness and underrepresentation.
• The Chief Justice's stance supports a dynamic interpretation of equality provisions, allowing for adjustments in reservation policies to better achieve the goal of substantive equality.
• This view aligns with the evolving jurisprudence on equality, moving away from a one-size-fits-all approach to a more tailored and context-specific application of reservation policies.
• CJI Chandrachud's interpretation reinforces the idea that the constitutional mandate for equality is not satisfied by formal equality alone but requires active measures to address historical and social disadvantages.
• His perspective underscores the need for continuous assessment and refinement of affirmative action policies to ensure they effectively address the changing landscape of social backwardness.
• The Chief Justice's view supports a more evidence-based approach to reservation policies, requiring states to justify sub-classifications with empirical data on backwardness and underrepresentation.
• This interpretation of substantive equality of opportunity allows for a more flexible and responsive system of affirmative action, capable of addressing the nuanced realities of social inequality in India.

What were the Procedures for Substantive Equality of Opportunity as per CJI DY Chandrachud?

• The State shall undertake comprehensive data collection regarding representation of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in various public services. This data will serve as an indicator of backwardness and inform policy decisions.
  • Article 16(1) shall be understood as promoting both formal and substantive equality in public employment.
  • Article 16(4) empowers the State to make special provisions for the advancement of SCs and STs.
• Article 335 shall be interpreted not as a limitation, but as reinforcing the necessity of considering SC and ST claims in public services.
• Administrative efficiency shall be conceptualized to promote inclusivity and equality, aligned with the spirit of Article 16(1).
• Based on the collected data and constitutional interpretation, the State shall design and implement affirmative action policies to address underrepresentation.
• The State shall periodically review the effectiveness of these measures and make necessary adjustments to ensure progress towards substantive equality.
• Establish a robust mechanism to address complaints related to discrimination or inadequate implementation of these provisions.
• Conduct outreach programs to inform SC and ST communities about available opportunities and maintain transparency in the selection process.
• Provide necessary training and support to SC and ST candidates to enhance their competitiveness in public service examinations and job performance.

How did the Concept of Equality of Opportunity Evolved in India?

• The State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951):
  • The Supreme Court initially took a formal approach, viewing reservations as an exception to equal opportunity.
  • It held that reservation of seats in educational institutions was unconstitutional without express provision.
• Venkataramana v. The State of Madras (1951):
  • The court ruled that only Harijans and backward Hindus could be considered as "backward classes" for reservation in public jobs.
• First Constitutional Amendment (1951):
  • Parliament enacted the first amendment, inserting Article 15(4) to allow reservations in educational institutions for backward classes.
• M R Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962):
  • The Supreme Court prescribed a 50% ceiling for reservations for the first time.
• State of Kerala v. N M Thomas (1975):
  • The court made an "expansive and substantive reading of the equality code," upholding a Kerala law that relaxed qualifying criteria for SC and ST candidates in government jobs.
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) (Mandal judgment):
  • The court observed that Articles 15(4) and 16(4) are special provisions, exceptions to the principle of equality. It also held that reservations in promotions would dilute efficiency in administration.
• Constitution (Seventy-seventh) Amendment Act, 1995:
  • Inserted Article 16(4A) to allow reservations in promotions and to undo the "catch-up rule."
• 2006 ruling:
  • The law on consequential seniority was upheld, stating that the efficiency of administration was only relaxed, not "obliterated," by the rule.
• Recent rulings by CJI DY Chandrachud:
  • Reframed the quota-versus-efficiency question, arguing that reservation reflects the mandate of substantive equality in the Constitution, not an exception to the equality rule.
  • CJI Chandrachud's opinion on efficiency: Argued that securing higher marks in an examination does not necessarily contribute to higher efficiency, and that meeting minimum qualifications is sufficient to maintain efficient administration.
  • Reservation is seen as a means to ensure substantive equality, despite potential impacts on traditional notions of efficiency.
  • The binary of reservation versus merit is rejected, with constitutional amendments viewed as "an emphatic repudiation" of this binary.

Conclusion

The concept of substantive equality of opportunity in India has evolved significantly from a formal approach to a more nuanced understanding. The Supreme Court, particularly under CJI Chandrachud's leadership, now interprets Articles 15(4) and 16(4) as tools to address social backwardness and ensure true equality, rather than mere exceptions to the equality principle. This shift recognizes the need for tailored approaches to affirmative action, including sub-classification within reserved categories, to effectively address varying degrees of backwardness. The current interpretation emphasizes data-driven policymaking, periodic reviews, and a redefinition of merit and efficiency in the context of inclusivity, marking a transformative phase in India's equality jurisprudence