INDIA bloc divided on SC ruling on Dalit sub-quotas, but hails 'vindication' of caste census

‘Empirical data’ interpretation

The INDIA parties are unanimous in the view that the judgment “unambiguously vindicates” their strident demand for conducting a socio-economic caste census. The majority view of the seven-judge Constitution Bench was that sub-classification and consequent grant of “more beneficial treatment” to prove “inadequacy of representation in services of the State” must be done based on “empirical data”.

This prerequisite for sub-classification laid down by the Supreme Court is being read by the INDIA parties as an endorsement of the need for a socio-economic caste census. However, there are divisions within the bloc on the moot question of whether sub-classification itself would be both politically and socially prudent.

Sources across the INDIA bloc told The Federal that a “more nuanced reading” of the 6:1 majority judgment is required before the alliance can put forth a “collective view” of the court’s findings and recommendations.

Contrasting responses 

The differences in opinion on the judgment among the INDIA partners were, however, clear. The CPI(M) issued an official statement welcoming the verdict and imploring state governments to “take all necessary measures to ensure that the backward sections of the SCs are provided with facilities for improving their conditions”. In stark contrast, RJD spokesperson and Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Kumar Jha told The Federal that while the SC verdict leaves “no scope for denying a caste census” now, his party “can never accept sub-classification for SCs or even STs”.

Jha asserted, “it is unfortunate that the Supreme Court’s verdict directly contradicts the very spirit of affirmative action... it goes against the principle settled during the Constituent Assembly debates that reservation is to be granted based on social backwardness... just because one section of a sub-caste among SCs may have improved their financial status due to benefits of reservation, does it mean that the social and historical backwardness of everyone in their community has improved to an extent that their share in the affirmative action plan may be diluted?”

Congress amplifies demand for caste census

The Congress, the largest party in the INDIA bloc, was yet to issue a formal statement on the verdict. Sources said an official statement had not been issued since Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge as well as Leader of Opposition (Lok Sabha), Rahul Gandhi, were tied up with important engagements through the day. Rahul, along with his sister and party general secretary Priyanka Gandhi was on a visit to his erstwhile Lok Sabha constituency of Wayanad, which was hit earlier this week by devastating landslides that claimed over 250 lives.

The Congress’s media wing chief Pawan Khera, however, told The Federal that the verdict “vindicates our stand on the need for a socio-economic caste census because without it, no state government can have the empirical data which the court has deemed necessary for sub-classification and recasting of reservation benefits”.

Sources in the Congress claimed that while the party high command has sought a detailed view on the finer nuances of the verdict from “legal luminaries” of the party, such as senior advocates P Chidambaram, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Salman Khurshid, the “overwhelming view” was that the verdict must be “welcomed in its entirety”.

It was, thus, no surprise that two of three Congress chief ministers, Telangana’s Revanth Reddy and Karnataka’s Siddaramaiah, hailed the judgment as historic, with Reddy even announcing that his government “would be the first state to implement the sub-classification”.

SP studies legal ramifications 

The INDIA bloc’s second largest party in the Lok Sabha, Akhilesh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party (SP) too has refrained from giving an official reaction to the verdict.

Sources said Akhilesh has also sought the opinion of various legal experts, including senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who was elected to the Rajya Sabha as an independent from Uttar Pradesh with the SP’s backing, of the political and legal ramifications of the judgment.

“The verdict has just been delivered today. It is a lengthy judgment with many facets and its impact could be massive. It would, thus, not be appropriate to comment on it without understanding all the legal points though we can say one thing for certain; that the verdict makes the case for a caste census much stronger than ever before. The other aspects, we will study in detail and then the party will give a detailed response,” SP’s Faizabad MP and seniormost Dalit leader Awadhesh Prasad told The Federal.

Sources in the Samajwadi Party, however, indicated that the party may take a position similar to that of the RJD.

“On caste census, we are committed and in that limited sense, we think this judgment is a major victory because the court has clearly said states need to collect data on backwardness and the only way to do it is through a caste census,” a senior SP office bearer close to Akhilesh said.

On whether sub-categorisation should be allowed, the leader said, “We are not very sure that it would be good for the society; it may create divisions among SCs because one section may feel that its rights are being taken away by another. It is a very tricky thing and not just the SP, but I feel the INDIA bloc as a whole will need to collectively think about how much of the verdict we should welcome.”

Verdict full of ambiguities: RJD

Jha believes that the verdict is “full of ambiguities” which “those who have always opposed caste-based reservation will seek to exploit”.

“I know I may be hauled up for contempt but with due respect to the court, I would like to say this is a very divisive verdict... It is a strange and painful coincidence that this judgment came on April 2, exactly six years after people from the SC and ST communities went on a nationwide agitation against another Supreme Court verdict (the reading down of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, which was later reversed) ... I think we will need another agitation like that one against this judgment also... the RJD will share its concerns over the sub-classification verdict with other INDIA parties and urge everyone not to accept sub-classification,” Jha said.

‘Internal quota may dilute caste census demand’

A section of Congress leaders too believe that the party “must not hurry into welcoming the judgment without any riders”.

“This is a very complicated issue and unqualified support for it would open a Pandora’s Box of problems... before long, there will be demands for sub-classification among tribals and OBCs. It is all very well to say that the verdict vindicates our demand for a caste census, but we have to understand that sub-classification per se will be very hard to explain; we may end up pitting one Dalit sub-caste against another Dalit sub-caste or one tribal group against another... it will wreak hara-kiri,” a senior Congress MP told The Federal.

Sources in the RJD, Congress and the SP also suggested that the “need of the moment” is for the INDIA bloc to “keep its focus squarely on pushing the caste census” and that the sub-categorisation issue could “dilute” that focus.

“Look at what is happening with the Maratha quota row in Maharashtra for the past year or what happened earlier in Rajasthan and Gujarat with the demands for Jat reservation and Patidar reservation, respectively... Do we really want such agitations cropping up in each state and among the SCs, STs and OBCs all at once? Imagine the social unrest it would cause,” a veteran INDIA bloc leader said.

‘Two basic flaws’

Another, a multiple-term MP from one of the INDIA parties told The Federal, “if the issue is merely about representation, we could always explore ways, like Tamil Nadu did, to expand the reservation pie so that underrepresented castes are also accommodated adequately; thanks to the Supreme Court’s verdict upholding the 10 per cent EWS quota, we all know that the 50 per cent ceiling on reservation is no longer sacrosanct.”

“Besides, there are two basic flaws in the Supreme Court reasoning; firstly, the top court says States can sub-categorise SCs listed under the Presidential List. To my mind, that is a power that should rest purely with Parliament and if at all it is to be tinkered with, then Parliament needs to first amend Article 341 which deals with the listing of SCs in the Presidential List,” the MP says.

“Secondly, in justifying sub-classification, the court assumes that a few Dalit sub-castes have monopolised benefits of affirmative action and so there isn’t an equitable distribution of the reservation pie. Now even assuming that this is the case, then shouldn’t there be a similar effort to ensure that in the general category, benefits aren’t monopolised by Brahmins or Thakurs and are equitably distributed among other forward castes too.”