Supreme Court Releases First Study on Judicial Conceptions of Caste

The Supreme Court of India has published a landmark institutional report titled “Judicial Conceptions of Caste”, marking the first systematic attempt by the judiciary to critically analyse how courts have spoken about caste over seven decades. Prepared by the Supreme Court’s Centre for Research and Planning (CRP), the report evaluates constitutional bench judgments on reservations, personal laws, and atrocities laws, highlighting the normative role of judicial language in shaping equality and social justice.


Continuing Concern: Caste as a Constitutional Issue

The report asserts that caste is not a historical artefact but a continuing constitutional concern, central to India’s equality jurisprudence. It argues that judicial vocabulary must reflect constitutional values, rejecting outdated or paternalistic terminology.

Relevant Constitutional Provisions:

  • Article 14 – Equality before law

  • Article 15(4) & 15(5) – Special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes

  • Article 16(4) & 16(4A) – Reservation in public employment for backward classes and SC/ST

  • Article 17 – Abolition of untouchability

  • Article 46 – Promotion of educational and economic interests of SC/ST

  • Article 338 & 338A – National Commissions for SCs and STs

  • Article 340 – Commission to investigate backward classes

These provisions collectively underline caste as a structural barrier to equality.


Judicial Language: A Tool That Shapes Doctrine and Public Perception

The CRP report studies Supreme Court judgments from the 1950s to the present to examine how courts conceptualized caste. It concludes that judicial language is not neutral; it shapes public understanding of merit, dignity, and discrimination.

Examples of outdated terminology previously used:

  • “Harijan”

  • “Girijan”

  • Metaphors such as “handicaps” to describe caste disadvantage

The report notes that such terms unintentionally reinforce stigma and depart from dignity-centric constitutional values.


Two Competing Judicial Narratives of Caste

The study identifies two recurring strands in Supreme Court jurisprudence:

1. Caste as a Hereditary Hierarchy

This approach recognizes caste as a rigid structure of power, exclusion, and endogamy—consistent with sociological realities and constitutional goals.

2. Caste as an Occupational Order

Some judgments historically relied on idealised scriptural accounts portraying caste as a benign system, mostly within Hindu society, ignoring caste-like structures among Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs.

The report notes that the second strand occasionally obscured the lived realities of discrimination and the persistence of caste after conversion.


Judicial Precedents Referenced or Relevant to the Study

While the report aggregates broad trends, several major cases form the backbone of caste jurisprudence:

Reservation and Equality Cases

  • M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) – Limits on reservation percentages; caste cannot be the sole criterion.

  • State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) – Reservation as a facet of equality.

  • Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – 50% rule; creamy layer doctrine; backwardness must be social and educational.

  • M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) – Conditions for reservation in promotions.

  • Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) – Creamy layer within SC/ST promoted categories examined.

SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Jurisprudence

  • Kartar Singh (1994) and subsequent judgments addressed the need for strict interpretation while protecting dignity of oppressed groups.

  • Subhash Kashinath Mahajan (2018) – Controversial dilution of safeguards; later reversed in Union of India v. State of Maharashtra (2019).

Personal Laws and Caste

  • Judgments on caste validity certificates, inter-caste marriages, and conversion reflect differing judicial attitudes.


Shifting Judicial Approach to Oppressed Groups

The report observes an evolution from paternalistic expressions to dignity-oriented vocabulary. Earlier judgments sometimes deployed metaphors that framed oppressed communities as passive recipients of state support.

Modern judgments instead emphasize:

  • structural discrimination,

  • historical disadvantage,

  • the Constitutional mandate of substantive equality.

This shift aligns with the constitutional vision of transformation articulated in Puttaswamy (2017) and Navtej Singh Johar (2018), where dignity is central to rights.


Debates on Constitutional Remedies for Caste Injustice

The Supreme Court's internal study also traces differing judicial views on how caste-based inequality should be addressed:

Education-Centric Remedies

Some benches emphasized education as the primary tool for upliftment.

Reservations as Structural Reform

Other judgments affirmed that reservations are essential for substantive equality, acknowledging that caste is a defining marker of disadvantage.

Arguments Focusing on Poverty

A judicial strand argued for poverty-based identification, downplaying caste as a determinant of backwardness. This was challenged by later sociological assessments and constitutional judgments.


Normative Power of Judicial Vocabulary

The report emphasizes that judicial words shape:

  • how the law imagines “merit,”

  • the meaning of “equality,”

  • the understanding of “disadvantage,” and

  • the role of the state in remedying structural injustice.

These descriptions influence legal doctrine, public policy, and societal attitudes.


Moments of Progress and Missed Opportunities

The CRP identifies moments where the Supreme Court advanced the Constitution’s transformative vision, such as:

  • affirming the structural nature of caste-based discrimination,

  • recognizing dignity as central to equality,

  • clarifying that caste persists across religions.

The report also notes instances where the Court reproduced stereotypes or failed to appreciate the depth of caste realities.


Call for Constitutionally Sensitive Judicial Vocabulary

The report urges judges to:

  • avoid reductive terminology,

  • reject outdated caste descriptors,

  • recognize the agency and dignity of marginalized groups,

  • use context-sensitive language aligned with constitutional morality.

This approach is essential for strengthening India's social justice project.


Institutional Context and Authors

This initiative follows earlier Supreme Court publications such as the Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes, demonstrating the judiciary’s commitment to addressing structural bias.

Authors:

  • Anurag Bhaskar, Director, CRP

  • Farrah Ahmed, Professor, Melbourne Law School

  • Bhimraj Muthu, Doctoral Researcher, University of Oxford

  • Shubham Kumar, Consultant, CRP

The report was released under the guidance of Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai, the first Buddhist and second Dalit to hold the office.


Conclusion: A Milestone in India’s Equality Jurisprudence

The Supreme Court’s first study on “judicial conceptions of caste” marks an important step in introspection and reform. By recognizing the deep influence of judicial language on legal doctrine and social understanding, the report provides a roadmap for a more informed, sensitive, and constitutionally aligned judiciary.

For judicial academies, lawmakers, and researchers, this report is not merely academic—it is a foundational guide to rethinking how courts conceptualize caste, equality, and justice in modern India.



Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Encroachment on Public Land: A Growing Threat to Governance and Public Welfare

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Equality Before Law

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Exploring Articles 236 to 238 of the Indian Constitution: A Contemporary Discourse