Historical and Legal Genesis
The legal identity of scheduled castes and tribes is a not just a mere product of socio-economic equality rather a “sui generis” category emerging out of a constitutional covenant. The roots of this covenant can be traced to the Poona Pact of 1932. Here, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi negotiated for a political future of Dalits, the Dalits surrendered their right of separate electorates under the Pact. By this act of surrendering the right of separate electorates while having reserved seats for them, the Dalits entered in a social contract which recognized them as a “singular” and “indivisible” political unit within the joint electorate. This singular and unified identity was further bolstered under the Government of India Act, 1935 which provided for reservation for SC/STs under its Schedule 1 and 5. This unified identity reached its zenith under our constitution which gave power to the President, by a public notification, make any caste, races or tribes, or parts of or group within castes, races or tribes a “deemed scheduled caste” for the purpose of the Constitution. Additionally, the same article provides that any inclusion or exclusion, to the list of such castes and tribes, as notified by the President under clause 1, can be done by the Parliament. In light of these two clauses of Article 341, it is essential to look at the point of V. I. Muniswamy Pillai when these articles were being debated in the constituent assembly. Pillai opens his remarks by firstly acknowledging the fact that this recognition of the term “scheduled castes” comes from the social-ill of untouchability which has been deeply entrenched in the Hindu Community for ages. It essentially refers to that section of people who were kept at the outskirts of Hindu Society for ages.[i] He further goes on to assert and support the point of Ambedkar that power to make alterations to these lists must solely rest with the parliament and not state legislatures so as to prevent any form of “political tinkering” under the garb of welfare.[ii] These points of debate in the constituent assembly clearly support the fact that the constitution-makers wanted to create a “legal monolith” of this category so as to shield them from any “divide and rule” tactic.
This view of looking at SC/STs as a single-unified category was also supported by the Supreme Court. Like in the case of State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas, the court while stating that reservation is not an exception but furtherance of equality had also stated that SC/STs are not castes under traditional sense of Hindu Society rather a completely distinct class due to their historical backwardness. A similar approach was taken in the case EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh where the Supreme Court had held that once a caste is included in the Presidential List of Article 341, all such castes form a single “homogenous class” and cannot be further divided.
By overruling this view in 2024, in the case of Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court has effectively obliterated the historical and legal basis of the creation of SC/ST category.
Misinterpretation of Article 341
The ruling in Davinder Singh also evinces a significant departure from the constitutional framework governing SC/STs. By empowering states to sub-classify the castes under the SC/ST umbrella, the court has arguably fractured the structural integrity of Article 341. This article under its clause 1 allows the President to notify a caste as a scheduled caste after consultation with governor. The second clause of this article goes on to say that any addition or exclusion to the aforementioned list can only be made by the parliament. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in his points submitted to the constituent assembly, had stated that the object of making only the Parliament competent to make any variance in the list is to eliminate any kind of political factor having a play in the matter of the disturbance in the schedule so published by the President.[iii] This clause was initially looked with suspicion for the fact that it neglected the provincial legislature making it bound by the decision of the Parliament.[iv] However, this suspicion was addressed by V.I Muniswamy Pillai. He said that as a matter of fact when Harijans behave independently or start asserting their rights on some matters, the Ministers in the provinces not only take note and action against those members, but also the community to which that individual belongs, thereby not only just the individual but the whole community coming under the category gets harassed. Hence, he believed this danger to be addressed by way of the second clause. Therefore, the intention of the constituent assembly is very clear about giving power to make changes to the Parliament; to protect the interests of the SC/ST groups from regional politics.
The majority in Davinder Singh states the sub-classification means “tinkering with the benefits” and not “the list”. However, if a state reduces effective reservation of a specific caste to a negligible percentage by increasing the percentage for another sub-group, it has practically excluded the former caste from the functional benefits of the Presidential List. Hence, when a state performs qualitative assessment as to determine which sub-group is more backward than other and which deserves larger share of quota, it is essentially performing a function which mirrors the procedure of inclusion or exclusion. Additionally, there is also a possibility that this sub-classification is motivated by electoral or political ambitions rather than any idea actual social upliftment. This effectively goes against the constitution’s idea that upliftment of SC/STs must be above regional political considerations.
For these considerations, the judgement has actually made SC/ST category a marketplace of backwardness which can in turn be exploited by parties for political gains, completely defeating the purpose what the centralized procedure of Article 341 sought to avoid. The judgement in its pursuit of “substantive equality” has inadvertently compromised the very constitutional safeguard that prevents the SC identity from being fragmented by divisive forces of electoral engineering.
The Jurisprudential Fallacy of the Advanced Dalit
The fundamental flaw of the Davinder Singh Judgement is its approach of equating SC identity to a mere metric of socio-economic backwardness which leads to conflation of stigma with poverty. Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of State of Kerala v. NM Thomas had observed that purpose of Article 16(4) is to bring about a “re-distribution of social power”. Similarly Justice Chinnappa had observed that for SCs, “stigma of birth is a permanent disability which upliftment cannot cure.” These observations of the apex court draw a clear conclusion that the main objective of the SC reservation is social transformation of the society for abolition of caste as a whole.
The “advancement logic” used by the Supreme Court in the Davinder Singh case fails to take into account the sociological reality of India. As per Surindher S. Jodhka and Katherine S. Newman, even after a Dalit manages to overcome caste bias and find jobs that are respectable enough to help launch careers of next generations, the odds are still against them. Even if employed they are more likely to be in low prestige positions due to an inherent bias that merit comes from background. Another study, by Katherine. S Newman and Ashwini Despande, points out to this reality, where they find that even after graduating from most premier institutions, Dalit students reported that their SC status was noted and sarcastic and derisive comments were made about their talent. Scholars have also made an inference that even after pursuing same level of academic excellence, Dalits were less likely to receive positive responses when applying for jobs. Similarly, S. Madheswaran’s and Attewell’s studies concluded that increase in education is necessary for closing the “endowment gap”, but still it is not enough because education is not rewarded equally for all castes.
The situation for Dalits does not change even after achieving some of the highest echelons in the country. In October 2025, IPS Y Puran Kumar of Haryana-Cadre serving at the rank of IG committed suicide by shooting himself leaving behind a suicide note alleging caste-based discrimination against nine serving IPS officers and three retired IAS officers. Similarly, in 2023 senior Dalit IAS officer Ashok Parmar of 1992 batch submitted a petition to the National Commission of Scheduled Castes, accusing Jammu and Kashmir LG and Chief Secretary of caste-based discrimination. Similarly, in September 2023 Kerala’s Minister for Temple Affairs K. Radhakrishnan levelled allegations of caste-discrimination against priests of a temple, accusing they declined to hand him the flame used to light a bigger lamp.
The situation is similarly disappointing for the so-called modern, premier and advanced higher education institutions of our country. In February 2023, Darshan Solanki, a student of IIT Bombay, one of India’s most modern and advanced institutions of our country committed suicide due to caste-based discrimination.
These instances are a clear testament of the fact that Dalit individual’s transition from a rural labour to a corporate professional or a high-ranking bureaucrat or minister does not result in a corresponding transition from the caste hierarchy. By focussing on this logic of “advancement,” the Supreme Court is overlooking the fact that the stigma still persists even after the advancement of some individuals, it is just merely relocated. The apex court should have kept in mind that the goal of SC reservation is not upliftment of untouchables or Dalits rather complete abolition of untouchability as a whole. Further, the court’s approach ignores the transformative nature of Article 341. The Presidential List creates a unified political identity allowing various castes and sub-castes to consolidate their power against the upper caste hegemony. However, this sub-classification would result in a fragmentation within the SC community for a “race to the bottom” in order to secure a share of the quota. The reliance on the “creamy layer” doctrine emerged from the Indra Sawhney judgment is a categorical error of highest level as while an OBC may move out of backwardness, a Scheduled Caste individual remains a member of a “stigmatized cohort” in every social interaction.
Therefore, as long as the historical prejudice of stigma is attached to their SC identity, their constitutional status as SC must remain indivisible. To sub-classify on the logic of “advancement” is to say that Constitution’s safeguard is a temporary safeguard of the poor rather than a right of the marginalized.
Impact on Effective Representation
The constitution envisages representation in not just “adequate” numbers rather “effective” presence. As was said by Ambedkar during the Constituent Assembly Debates “…we had to reconcile…the demand by certain communities that the administration which has for now, due to historical reasons been controlled by one community or few communities, that situation should now disappear and others also must have an opportunity of getting into public services.” Here, he is referring to not just presence of those excluded communities in the administration rather advocating for effective institutional power-sharing for them. This vision of ensuring substantive equality was first affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Southern Railways v. Rangachari where the court stated that the objective of adequate representation of SCs in “services under state” would be defeated if it just remains limited to the lowest ranks. In August 2023, a panel headed by Kirti Premjbhai Solanki submitted its report titled “Role of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) in Formulation, Implementation and Monitoring of Reservation Policy,” before the Lok Sabha where they highlighted dismal representation of SCs in India’s higher bureaucracy. The panel had also flagged that there is negligible or no presence of SC and ST members in the board of directors of almost all ministries, departments, public-sector units and state-run banks. This deprives them from becoming a part of the decision-making process and policy matters.
Such reports clearly point towards the fact that the total percentage of SCs in government services, judiciary and leadership might look “adequate” on paper but their presence in real and effective power-sharing remains abysmal. The court and the state must acknowledge the fact that the so-defined “advanced” members of the SC community are usually the only ones who have the adequate resources and social capital to enter these higher echelons completely dominated by the upper castes currently. By attempting to narrow down the quota of the so-called “advanced” castes, the judiciary and executive are penalizing the “advancement” of this community which will eventually lead to a situation where the SCs remain a “working class” in the state and not the “governing class” a numerical success but a substantive failure of our constitutional goal. Article 16(4) was designed to give “strength” to the Dalits to influence State’s action, but sub-classification has the potential to fragment the community ensuring that their voice at the decision making-level remains silent.
Way Forward
While unequal distribution of benefits among SCs is a sociological reality, the appropriate response should focus on ensuring equitable access of opportunities and strengthening representation, rather than fragmenting the community in a manner that may weaken its collective political and institutional voice. The solution to the problem is provided in the constitution itself which places a duty on the state “to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker section of the people, especially SC/STs…”. This model has been a precedent, like the 2006 Sachar Committee report, though dealing with social, educational and economic status of Muslims, had in its recommendations advocated for “targeted development” (Area-Based approach).
The court’s reasoning is oblivious of the fact that the central reason for this inequality within the SC community is not for the reason that the certain “advanced” members took the seats of more marginalized sub-castes, rather it is the state’s failure to address the inherent structural barriers preventing the most marginalized sections from availing the benefits. For example, the occupation of manual scavenging is largely driven the caste-system of our country. To address this, the government rolled out a number schemes including the “Self-Employment Scheme for Rehabilitation of Manual Scavengers (SRMS)”. However, the scheme suffers from a major flaw that it solely focuses on providing alternate employment rather than addressing the real underlying issue of need of such employment. Further, the implementation of the policy has been hindered by reasons of corruption and red tapism. This clearly shows that the real hindrance for their inclusion is the failure of concentrated state-action rather than “advanced” members of their community taking their benefits. The barrier is the environment not the quota system.
The only effective way of addressing this is court directing the State to deploy its “special care” obligation as mandated in our DPSPs by way of educational and development programmes for the most marginalized sub-castes. The State should work towards expanding the opportunity for these sub-castes instead of tinkering with share of quota on “advancement” lines.
Conclusion
The view of the court while aiming for “substantive equality”, in reality, threatens the Constitutional architecture of Article 341. By treating SC identity as socio-economic fluid metric rather than a legal monolith, the court fails to take into account the sociological reality of India and making the community vulnerable to becoming a “marketplace for equality.” True upliftment lies not in “tinkering the benefits” rather in fulfilment of “special care” obligations of the states by way of targeted developmental action.
[i] Constituent Assembly Debates, vol 9, 17 September 1949, 1637–38 (V I Muniswamy Pillai). https://eparlib.sansad.in/bitstream/123456789/760460/1/CA_Debate_Eng_Vol_04.pdf
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Constituent Assembly Debates, vol 9, 17 September 1949, 1639 (B.R Ambedkar). https://eparlib.sansad.in/bitstream/123456789/760460/1/CA_Debate_Eng_Vol_04.pdf
[iv] Constituent Assembly Debates, vol 9, 17 September 1949, 1630 (Kuladhar Chaliha). https://eparlib.sansad.in/bitstream/123456789/760460/1/CA_Debate_Eng_Vol_04.pdf
The author is a third year student of the National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata.
Image Credits: Frances Murphy for Yes Magazine
Constitutional Law Society 
Leave a comment