On August 20, 2024, the Supreme Court of India rejected a petition that sought to abolish caste system by declaring it unconstitutional. The petitioner argued that the caste system infringes upon the Constitution and the right to equality. However, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud highlighted that the Constitution originally recognized Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, which led to the dismissal of the petition.

Key points made by the petitioner in the Supreme Court petition seeking to declare the abolish caste systemunconstitutional were:

The Constitution initially references Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, a point the petitioner claimed is problematic.

Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 explicitly states that individuals who adhere to a religion other than Hinduism or Sikhism cannot be classified as members of a Scheduled Caste.

The petitioner argued that this provision infringes upon Articles 14, 15, and 25 of the Constitution. As a member of the Adi-Dravida caste (classified as a Scheduled Caste), the petitioner was denied access to welfare benefits designated for Scheduled Castes following their conversion to Christianity. The petitioner further asserted that this situation constituted unconstitutional discrimination based on religious affiliation.

Key Justifications for Dismissal

The Court underscored the doctrine of res judicata, which prohibits the re-litigation of an issue that has already been decided. The Chief Justice pointed out that the caste system is acknowledged in the Constitution, especially concerning Scheduled Castes and Tribes, indicating that the matter had been resolved in prior legal proceedings. The dismissal was consistent with the view that the issues presented were not novel and had been adequately dealt with in earlier judgments.

abolish caste system
Image Source: LIve Law

The Court determined that the petition failed to introduce significant new arguments or evidence that would justify a reassessment of the existing legal framework regarding the caste system. The Chief Justice noted that the Constitution recognizes the presence of caste categories, thereby complicating the petitioner’s argument for deeming the caste system unconstitutional based on the reasons provided.

The ruling also demonstrated an awareness of judicial efficiency, indicating that granting the petition would be of no practical benefit in light of existing legal precedents. The Court voiced apprehension regarding the risk of baseless lawsuits, emphasizing that the judicial system should not be exploited for publicity or for matters that have already been resolved.

This decision occurs against the backdrop of the caste system's deep entrenchment in Indian society, with its roots tracing back to ancient times. The system was further solidified during the Mughal and British periods, as the colonial administration integrated it into their governance framework. Following India's independence in 1947, the Constitution explicitly prohibited caste-based discrimination, and affirmative action measures were introduced to support the advancement of historically marginalized communities.

Despite various initiatives, the caste system persists in certain regions of India, with caste-related distinctions also evident in other faiths and areas of the Indian subcontinent. This system has attracted criticism from both domestic and international observers, including prominent figures such as B.R. Ambedkar, who was born into a caste deemed untouchable and extensively documented the discrimination and suffering inflicted by the caste system.

You might also be interested in - Supreme Court stays Hijab ban at Mumbai college