A recent judgment by a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India suggests that states may now sub-categorise the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to better address the needs of the most disadvantaged sections within these groups.
This ruling marks a significant departure from the longstanding constitutional directive, which previously treated these groups uniformly, based on socio-cultural history – such as the experience of untouchability for SCs and geographic alienation for STs.
The court argued that these categories are heterogeneous, with certain sections experiencing class mobility as a result of benefiting from affirmative action policies. While this judgment appears to respond to calls for greater representation of vulnerable subgroups within SCs and STs, it offers a divisive solution without fully addressing the underlying structural barriers that prevent effective state intervention in the broader welfare of these communities.
Significantly, the court critiqued a small segment of beneficiaries within these groups, labelling them as a dominant “creamy layer” (e.g., the Mahars in Maharashtra or the Meenas in Rajasthan), without providing substantial empirical evidence. In the case of Dalits, the court overlooked the fact that the stigma of untouchability applies to all SCs, regardless of their economic or professional advancement.
This ruling has sparked heated debates regarding the concept of social justice, the mandate of reservation policies, and the potential political ramifications of such reforms. In this essay, I argue that the court’s observations, though appears moralistic and sympathetic particularly concerning the worst-off social groups, it undermines the ethical foundation of the social justice agenda.
The mandate of social justice shall not be minimised as a passive policy framework that offers few jobs in the government sector. Instead, it directs the state to take impressive measures towards reforming the social and economic order. The current Dalit movements have furthered this argument by demanding a substantive elevation of marginalised social groups as crucial political elites in democratic polity alongside the renewed demands of their equitable participation in the neo-liberal economic growth.
The constitutional mandate and the limitations of reservation policy
The framers of India’s Constitution recognised that the Brahminical caste system was deeply oppressive to the untouchable castes. Historically, both SCs and STs were denied basic human rights and excluded from mainstream society. B.R. Ambedkar, a leading figure in this struggle, made these marginalised groups central to the nationalist discourse.
He employed modern political ideas and constitutional categories, such as the “Depressed Classes” (later termed SCs), to organise untouchable castes into a unified national bloc, advocating for their participation in modern institutions. Ambedkar also promoted Buddhist conversion as a way for Dalits to escape the stigma of untouchability and enter democratic processes as dignified individuals.
Post-independence, the Indian state positioned itself as a protector of the poor and socially marginalised, enacting social justice policies to facilitate the participation of historically oppressed groups in nation-building. Social and economic justice movements have allowed a significant portion of SCs to enter the middle class, enabling them to play an influential role in India’s democratic polity.
However, these gains are limited. Liberal constitutional measures have failed to dismantle entrenched class inequalities and caste hierarchies. Multiple academic and state survey reports clinically demonstrated that for Dalits, social repression, discrimination, and violence persist – including in urban labour markets – rendering them one of India’s most disadvantaged groups.
The core mandate of social justice policies is to democratise public institutions by curtailing the dominance of social elites. However, an assessment of the implementation of reservation policies reveals that only a small segment of SCs and STs has benefitted, while vast numbers remain trapped in precarious socio-economic conditions.
While the court expressed concern for these disadvantaged groups, its proposal to sub-categorise SCs and STs is a superficial reaction to a deeper problem of historical injustice and social exclusion. The limited support SCs and STs receive under reservation policies has failed to bring significant diversity to modern institutions.
Reserved posts in the higher echelons of government (Group A and B positions) often remain vacant, with the excuse that “suitable candidates” from marginalised groups could not be found. The court, in its ruling, mischaracterised the reservation policy as a mere job distribution mechanism, overlooking its ethical objective.
It also neglected to explore the structural barriers that hinder the effectiveness of social justice policies. This misinterpretation of reservations as a poverty alleviation tool rather than a transformative policy has further diluted the vision of social justice. Contemporary Dalit movements have consistently demanded reforms to ensure fair and effective implementation of reservation policies, but the Court, in this instance, has sidestepped these demands.
The compromised social justice agenda:
In recent years, marginalised groups have become increasingly aware of their precarious socio-economic status and have advocated for stronger policy reforms, including the extension of affirmative action and reservation policies to the private sector.
However, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government has largely ignored these demands, focusing instead on cultural strategies that fragment unity among oppressed groups. The right-wing narrative acknowledges the social tensions between Dalit and Adivasi groups but avoids fostering solidarity among them.
Instead, it reinforces caste distinctions by promoting exclusive caste-based folklore and subaltern heroes. Over the past decade, the BJP has actively celebrated these distinct caste identities in public spaces, organising events and erecting statues to commemorate local heroes.
This strategy has helped the party reduce the ideological divide between social justice politics and Hindutva, thereby cultivating a significant support base among marginalised groups (Narayan, 2009). Yet, in the 2024 general elections, there has been a notable shift.
Marginalised groups, particularly SCs and STs in states like Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and Jharkhand, have moved away from the BJP and aligned with the INDIA bloc. This shift underscores the importance of material well-being and equitable representation in state institutions for Dalits and Adivasis. The government’s failure to address these concerns, coupled with the court’s sub-categorisation ruling, risks derailing the broader social justice agenda.
The need for revitalising social justice agenda and politics
Reviving the social justice agenda requires a unified mobilisation of oppressed groups and a focus on substantive reforms to address economic inequality. State and central governments must demonstrate a commitment to implementing reservation policies effectively across all state institutions, filling backlog vacancies, and expanding social justice policies to other economic sectors, including contract work and single administrative posts.
This would ensure that SC/ST groups are represented in diverse fields and not merely confined to lower-level positions. The reservation policy should not be seen merely as a tool for class mobility or job distribution.
Also Read: Opposition to Sub-classification — Negation of Reality, Equality and Unity
Instead, it should be recognised as an ethical framework for building an inclusive economy where historically marginalised groups are key actors in production, management, and ownership. The Supreme Court’s recent decision on sub-categorisation undermines this ethical vision by misrepresenting the nature and purpose of social justice policies.
Despite India’s 76 years as a republic, key institutions of power and prestige remain dominated by social elites, while Dalits, Adivasis, and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) remain marginalised. The Supreme Court’s ruling on sub-categorisation suggests that certain sections of these communities have benefitted disproportionately.
However, Dalit-Bahujan movements have called for a reinvigoration of the social justice agenda, with a focus on expanding welfare measures and ensuring equitable participation in the market economy. In the post-liberalisation economy, marginalised groups remain relegated to low-wage, precarious jobs, with minimal representation in positions of power. To address this, the state must take active steps to promote entrepreneurship and leadership opportunities for SCs, STs, and OBCs.
Expanding the scope of social justice policies to encompass both public and private sectors would help democratise India’s economic landscape, ensuring that the benefits of economic growth are shared by all. In sum, the Supreme Court’s ruling on sub-categorisation threatens to weaken the social justice agenda. Instead of fostering division, policymakers must focus on creating an inclusive socio-economic order that empowers marginalised groups and addresses the structural barriers that continue to perpetuate inequality.
Harish S. Wankhede is Assistant Professor, Center for Political Studies, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
