Tuesday’s ruling by a three-member Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India on the question of backward classes reservation is likely to surprise many. All that the court had to do in respect of the quota-related cases relating to Tamil Nadu and Karnataka before it was to reiterate its own judgment of 1993, which laid down that no more than 50 per cent of available seats in government-funded educational institutions and government employment will be demarcated for beneficiaries under the reservation scheme. Leaving the remaining 50 per cent open to general competition was a practical way out of the situation imposed by the political system during Prime Minister Vishwanath Pratap Singh’s tenure following the acceptance of Mandal Commission recommendations. Even under the reservation plan, nothing stops candidates whose castes otherwise qualify for quota benefits from taking part in open competition. This means “quota plus” benefits are available to caste groups for which reservation was intended. Instead of abiding by the letter and spirit of its earlier judgment, which the political and social system in the country had broadly come to accept as a reasonable benchmark, the latest thinking of the Supreme Court may have the unintended effect of producing a contentious debate across the country that could vitiate the atmosphere, as had been the case when Mr V.P. Singh gave effect to the Mandal recommendations.
In effect, the Supreme Court has now permitted states to come up with accurately compiled lists of backward castes, and allow all of the BC percentage of the population to enjoy quota benefits. The 50 per cent limit is thus out of the window. It is not clear wh­at is to happen in respect of reservations in institutions that are un­d­er the purview of the Centre, not the states. The trouble with the Supreme Court’s new approach is that it can be made a plaything in the ha­nds of politicians. A caste not hitherto listed in the backward category can armtwist its way into the privileged group in or­der to gr­ab reservation benefits if it can bring everyday life to a st­andstill, using methods of protest that are violent. Several such ca­ses have come to light in various states. Strongly placed caste gr­oups tend to use protest as an instrument of blackmail on the eve of electi­o­ns in order to advance their economic interests, wh­e­t­her they are genuinely needy or not. There is also an element of implied disc­r­i­m­ination here. A caste group, which may be no better placed in the socio-economic hierarchy than one which has su­cceeded in st­o­rming its way into the quota ranks, will be left out of considerati­on if it doesn’t have at least as much nuisance value as the first. This is clearly an unsustainable situation, not to say an inequitable one as well, especially in a context in which caste alone becomes the criterion of deciding ways of going about helping those in need.
Caste is unquestionably a dominant reality in India. Also, caste realities coincide with class realities in many cases. But none of this can mean that caste is the best way to decide the allocation of government benefits for the needy. Why not treat an individual’s want as the legitimate basis for offering help? Such an approach would be non-discriminatory, and eschew the statist quota method. The framers of our Constitution understood this and allowed quota benefits only for SC and ST categories as these had suffered societal discrimination for millennia. Furthermore, the quota allowance was to be for a limited period only. Alas, quota categories have not only mushroomed, but the so-called “creamy layers” have never been eased out. This is a trap of our own making, and the Supreme Court has now only compounded it.