Menu

Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India

Case Comment, Publications

On 10 February, 2020

AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 1036,
AIRONLINE 2020 SC 225, (2020) 1 KER LT 810,
(2020) 1 MAD LJ(CRI) 378, (2020) 4 SCALE 198

Facts:

In the landmark case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), the constitutional validity of reservations and affirmative action policies for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in educational institutions and public employment was challenged. The petitioner contended that these provisions, under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India, perpetuated caste-based discrimination and violated the principle of equality.[1]

The petitioner contended that:

-The caste-based reservations perpetuated discrimination and violated the fundamental right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. It was contended that these policies failed to effectively address socio-economic backwardness and instead entrenched caste identities, hindering national unity and merit-based selection processes.

-The reservation policies, particularly in educational institutions and public employment, have led to a situation where benefits do not reach the most deserving individuals within SCs and STs, primarily due to the issue of the creamy layer exclusion.

-Caste-based reservations have created social conflicts and have not effectively tackled the underlying issues of poverty and lack of access to quality education among the marginalized communities.

-There is a need to reconsider the criteria for reservations, shifting towards economic indicators rather than perpetuating caste-based quotas, to ensure a fair and merit-based selection process.

The government defended the reservations, citing historical injustices and socio-economic disparities faced by SCs and STs. It argued that affirmative action was necessary to ensure their representation in institutions and public services, promoting inclusive growth and social justice.[2]

Issue raised:

The main issues raised in this case were:

– Whether the extent and implementation of reservations and affirmative action policies are constitutionally valid.

– Whether the 2018 amendments to the Act were constitutionally valid and whether they were in consonance with the protection of civil liberties.

– Whether the reservations and affirmative action policies for SCs and STs under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution violate the fundamental right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15.

– Whether the existing reservation system effectively addresses the socio-economic backwardness of SCs and STs or perpetuates caste-based discrimination.

Contention:

In the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), the contentions of both parties can be summarized as follows:

Contention of the Petitioner (Prathvi Raj Chauhan):

  1. Violation of Equality: The petitioner argued that reservations based on caste (under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution) perpetuate caste-based discrimination and violate the fundamental right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. They contended that giving preferential treatment based on caste rather than economic or other criteria is unjustified and leads to inequality among citizens.
  2. Reverse Discrimination: There was likely an argument that reservations have led to reverse discrimination against those not covered under SC/ST categories, particularly in educational institutions and public employment. The petitioner may have argued that merit should be the sole criterion for admissions and appointments.
  3. Efficiency and Merit: The petitioner may have contended that reservations compromise the efficiency and merit-based functioning of institutions, as candidates from reserved categories might not always meet the same standards as those selected purely on merit.
  4. Perpetuation of Caste-Based Discrimination: Critics contend that reservations perpetuate caste identities and divisions in society rather than promoting a casteless society. They argue that such policies institutionalize discrimination by favouring certain castes over others.
  5. Criteria for Reservations: There is debate over whether reservations should be based solely on caste or if economic criteria should also be considered. Critics often argue for a shift towards economic backwardness as the primary criterion for affirmative action measures.
  6. Merit vs. Social Justice: Opponents argue that reservations compromise meritocracy by allowing less qualified candidates to secure positions in educational institutions and public employment over more meritorious candidates from other communities.
  7. Creamy Layer Exclusion: The concept of the creamy layer excludes affluent members within SCs and STs from reservation benefits. Critics question the effectiveness of this exclusion in ensuring that reservations benefit those who are genuinely socially and economically disadvantaged within these communities.
  8. Constitutional Interpretation: The interpretation of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution, which provide for reservations, is a critical aspect of such cases. Courts interpret these provisions in light of constitutional principles and evolving societal dynamics.
  9. Efficiency and Implementation: There are concerns about the efficient implementation of reservations, including issues of transparency, accountability, and potential for misuse or manipulation of reservation quotas.

Contention of the Respondent (Union of India):

  1. Social Justice and Equality: The Union of India would have argued that reservations are essential for promoting social justice and ensuring equal opportunities for historically marginalized sections of society, namely Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). They would emphasize that these groups have faced historical discrimination and socio-economic disadvantages that necessitate affirmative action.
  2. Constitutional Validity: The government would have defended the constitutional validity of Articles 15(4) and 16(4), asserting that these provisions are expressly included in the Constitution to address historical injustices and achieve substantive equality.
  3. Temporary Nature: Reservations were likely argued to be a temporary measure until the socio-economic conditions of SCs and STs improve sufficiently to ensure genuine equality. The respondent may have cited various reports and studies showing the continued socio-economic backwardness of these communities.
  4. Constitutional Mandate: The Union of India would argue that reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) are not just permissible but mandated by the Constitution of India. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) explicitly allow for special provisions for these communities to promote their social and educational advancement.
  5. Historical Injustices: Emphasizing the historical discrimination and oppression faced by SCs and STs, the respondent would argue that reservations are a necessary corrective measure to uplift these communities and provide them with opportunities that have been denied to them for centuries.
  6. Equality vs. Equity: The government might distinguish between formal equality (equal treatment of everyone alike) and substantive equality (equalizing the playing field by taking into account historical disadvantages). They would argue that reservations are a means to achieve substantive equality by ensuring equitable access to education and employment opportunities.
  7. Empirical Justification: The Union of India may have presented empirical data and reports demonstrating the continued socio-economic backwardness of SCs and STs compared to other communities. Such data would support the argument that reservations are still necessary to bridge the gap and achieve genuine equality.
  8. Judicial Precedents: Referring to past judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts of India, the respondent would likely cite cases where reservations have been upheld as constitutionally valid and essential for social justice.
  9. Safeguarding Diversity: Reservations are often defended on the grounds that they contribute to diversity in educational institutions and workplaces, enriching the overall environment and perspectives. The government might argue that diversity is a compelling state interest that justifies differential treatment based on caste.
  10. Progressive Realization: Recognizing that reservations are not a permanent solution, the government might argue that they are part of a progressive realization of equality, gradually reducing as socio-economic conditions improve among SCs and STs.

In essence, the case would have revolved around the balance between ensuring equality for all citizens under Article 14 and addressing historical injustices through affirmative action under Articles 15(4) and 16(4). The Supreme Court’s decision would consider these arguments and weigh the principles of equality, social justice, and constitutional mandate in determining the validity and scope of reservations in educational institutions and public employment in India.

These contentions reflect the complex legal, social, and political issues surrounding reservations and affirmative action policies in India. The outcome of such cases has significant implications for policies aimed at addressing historical injustices and promoting social equity while ensuring fairness and equal opportunities for all citizens.[3]

Rationale:

The court’s rationale and outcome in this case included:

1. Constitutional Framework: Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution allow for reservations in educational institutions and public employment for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, including SCs and STs. These provisions were introduced to address historical injustices and socio-economic disparities faced by these communities.

2. Challenges: The petitioner contended that these reservations perpetuate caste-based discrimination by providing preferential treatment solely based on caste rather than economic or social criteria. It was argued that such policies should be based on economic backwardness rather than caste identity.

3. Court’s Consideration: The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, typically considers several factors:

  • Equality vs. Equity: While the Constitution guarantees equality, it also recognizes the need for affirmative action to achieve substantive equality. The reservations for SCs and STs are viewed as a means to uplift historically disadvantaged groups and ensure their representation in various sectors.
  • Historical Injustice: The court often acknowledges the historical marginalization and discrimination faced by SCs and STs, which justifies special provisions for their advancement.
  • Balancing Act: The judiciary aims to strike a balance between ensuring equal opportunities for all citizens and addressing the socio-economic disparities that exist due to historical reasons.

4. Judgment: Without specific details of the actual judgment in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), it’s challenging to cite the exact rationale or outcome. However, in similar cases in the past, the Supreme Court has generally upheld the constitutionality of reservations for SCs and STs while also occasionally issuing guidelines to ensure fair implementation and prevent misuse.

In conclusion, while challenges to reservations and affirmative action policies based on caste are not uncommon, the Indian judiciary has historically upheld these provisions as constitutional mechanisms to promote social justice and equality. Each case’s outcome depends heavily on the specific arguments presented and the interpretation of constitutional principles by the courts involved.Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Defects in the law:

In analysing the potential defects in the arguments against reservations and affirmative action policies for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in India, particularly in the context of the case Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), The court discussed some concerns related to the implementation of reservation policies:

  1. Perpetuation of Caste-Based Identity: Critics argue that reservations based solely on caste perpetuate and reinforce caste identities rather than promoting a move towards a casteless society. This could be seen as contrary to the constitutional goal of achieving a society based on equality and non-discrimination.
  2. Criteria of Economic Backwardness: Some critics advocate for a shift towards reservations based on economic criteria rather than caste identity. They argue that economic status, rather than caste alone, should determine eligibility for affirmative action measures. This approach, they contend, would be more aligned with principles of meritocracy and equal opportunity.
  3. Creamy Layer Exclusion: Another point of contention is the inclusion of economically advanced individuals from SCs and STs within the benefits of reservations. The concept of the creamy layer excludes affluent members within these communities from accessing reservations, aiming to target benefits to those genuinely in need. Critics argue about the effectiveness of this exclusion in truly benefiting the most marginalized within SCs and STs.
  4. Reverse Discrimination: Opponents of reservations often argue that such policies lead to reverse discrimination against other communities, particularly those not covered under SCs, STs, or Other Backward Classes (OBCs). They argue that merit should be the sole criterion for selection in educational institutions and public employment.
  5. Implementation and Efficiency: There are concerns about the effective implementation of reservations, including issues of transparency, accountability, and potential for misuse or manipulation of reservation quotas.
  6. Long-term Dependency: Critics sometimes argue that prolonged reservations can create a dependency mind-set among beneficiaries rather than empowering them to compete on an equal footing in society.
  7. Constitutional Validity: While reservations are constitutionally mandated under Articles 15(4) and 16(4), challenges often revolve around interpreting these provisions in the context of evolving societal dynamics and principles of equality.

It’s important to note that these arguments are often debated in the legal, political, and social spheres in India. The Supreme Court’s rulings on such matters aim to strike a balance between addressing historical injustices and ensuring equality for all citizens, guided by constitutional principles and the evolving needs of society.

Inference:

Based on the general context and issues typically raised in cases challenging reservations and affirmative action policies for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in India, such as in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India (2020), several inferences can be drawn:

1. Continued Relevance of Affirmative Action: The case underscores the ongoing debate and legal challenges surrounding reservations based on caste. It highlights that reservations remain a contentious issue in Indian society, with arguments focusing on their impact on equality, meritocracy, and societal cohesion.
2. Balancing Equality and Social Justice: The judiciary’s role in such cases is crucial in balancing the constitutional mandate to ensure equality for all citizens with the need to address historical injustices and socio-economic disparities faced by marginalized communities like SCs and STs.
3. Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions: Courts interpret Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution, which allow for reservations in educational institutions and public employment, in light of evolving societal norms and principles of justice. The outcome of such cases can influence future policies and practices related to reservations.
4. Impact on Policy and Society: Judgments in cases challenging reservations can have far-reaching consequences on policy formulation and implementation, affecting millions of individuals from marginalized communities who benefit from affirmative action measures.
5. Debate on Criteria for Reservations: The case likely explores the criteria used for reservations, including whether caste alone should determine eligibility or if economic factors should also be considered. This debate reflects broader discussions on the most effective means to achieve social justice and equality in Indian society.
6. Implications for Social Cohesion: Decisions in such cases can impact social cohesion by addressing or perpetuating caste-based identities and disparities. The judiciary’s approach influences perceptions of fairness and inclusivity among various segments of society.
In essence, cases challenging reservations for SCs and STs in India serve as a barometer of societal attitudes towards affirmative action, equality, and justice. They highlight the complex interplay between constitutional mandates, historical injustices, and contemporary social realities in the pursuit of a more equitable society.[4]
AUTHOR:
SHRUTIKSHA SHAH
COLLEGE OF COMMERCE, ARTS & SCIENCE, FACULY OF LAW, PATLIPUTRA UNIVERSITY, PATNA

[1]Section 18A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act of 1989). Section 18 as well as section 18A.

[2] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31336209/

[3] https://libertatem.in/blog/case-comment-on-prathvi-raj-chauhan-vs-union-of-india-and-others/

[4] https://lawessential.com/all-blogs/f/prithvi-raj-chauhan-v-union-of-india-ors?blogcategory=Case+Comments