The retirement of Justice C.T. Ravikumar from the Supreme Court has been recognised as a moment of historical significance within the Indian judiciary. His tenure exemplifies the journey of an individual from a Dalit background traversing the milestones of judicial service. Justice Ravikumar, in his farewell address, reaffirmed the judiciary’s role as the “guardian of the Constitution” and articulated the notion that the people of India serve as its ultimate protectors. His commitment to respecting the judiciary’s integrity even after retirement has been interpreted as a profound pledge to uphold constitutional values beyond his judicial tenure.
Judicial milestones: Reflections on equality and justice:
The reflections offered by Justice Ravikumar have highlighted the judiciary’s potential to be both a platform for merit and a reminder of the systemic barriers faced by marginalised communities. His acknowledgment of the institution’s role as the “guardian of law” underlines the significance of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary as a cornerstone of democratic governance.
Addressing caste discrimination in prisons
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors. has been widely regarded as a landmark decision against caste-based discrimination within state prisons. This judgment declared unconstitutional the provisions within certain state prison manuals that mandated labour assignments based on caste, particularly for Scheduled Caste prisoners. The Court observed that such practices violated Article 21’s guarantee of life and dignity while simultaneously contravening Article 17, which prohibits untouchability.
The manuals of states such as Bihar, West Bengal, and Punjab had perpetuated the stereotype that Scheduled Castes were obligated to perform menial labour. This institutionalised discrimination reinforced harmful prejudices and gave legal sanction to caste-based hierarchies. By striking down these provisions, the judiciary reaffirmed its commitment to proportional equality, a principle that seeks to address systemic disadvantages through judicial interventions.
This judgment has been viewed as a step towards eliminating discriminatory practices in institutional settings, serving as a reminder of the judiciary’s role in dismantling social inequities. It has underscored the importance of constitutional protections in ensuring that dignity and equality are not theoretical concepts but lived realities.
Combatting caste discrimination in higher education:
The Supreme Court’s observations regarding caste discrimination in higher education institutions have further illustrated its commitment to addressing systemic inequities. The failure to implement the 2012 University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations designed to prevent caste-based discrimination in colleges was identified as a critical issue. In response, the bench asserted the necessity of devising effective mechanisms to ensure the enforcement of these regulations.
This intervention has been interpreted as a recognition of the judiciary’s responsibility to bridge the gap between policy formulation and implementation. The Court’s emphasis on practical enforcement has reflected its understanding of the vulnerabilities faced by students from marginalised communities in academic settings.
The judiciary’s proactive stance in addressing caste-based discrimination has highlighted the interplay between regulatory bodies and constitutional mandates. By prioritising inclusivity within educational institutions, the Supreme Court has sought to create environments where students from diverse backgrounds can pursue opportunities free from prejudice and bias.
Balancing equality with reasonable classification:
The journey of Justice Ravikumar and the Supreme Court’s recent interventions have collectively highlighted the judiciary’s role in advancing the principles of equality and justice. However, the constitutional framework necessitates a nuanced understanding of equality, particularly through the lens of Article 14, which permits reasonable classifications based on intelligible differentia.
In the Indian context, the unique socio-historical conditions of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) necessitate differentiated policies to address their specific disadvantages. These groups cannot be equated with historically privileged communities, such as Brahmins, due to the absence of vertical caste mobility and the deep-rooted nature of caste hierarchies.
The principles of reasonable classification and affirmative action have been regarded as essential in achieving substantive equality. These measures, while aimed at addressing systemic disparities, must also ensure that they do not inadvertently create new forms of discrimination. The judiciary’s interventions have reinforced the necessity of balancing these considerations to uphold the constitutional vision of justice.
The reflections of Justice Ravikumar and the judicial decisions addressing caste-based discrimination have collectively highlighted the judiciary’s capacity to advance the ideals of equality and justice. These efforts signify a commitment to ensuring that constitutional protections translate into tangible benefits for all sections of society.
