SC Judge Gavai: “Unequal Starting Points Justify Reservations”
In a landmark observation, Supreme Court Judge BR Gavai stated that children of labourers cannot compete with bureaucrats’ sons, reinforcing the need for caste-based reservations. The remark came during a hearing on Maharashtra’s SC/ST promotion quota policy.
Why Gavai’s Statement Ignited the Reservation Debate
The Supreme Court was examining whether Maharashtra’s extension of promotions quotas violated the 50% cap set in the Indra Sawhney case (1992). Critics argue quotas harm meritocracy, while Justice Gavai, a Dalit himself, countered:
“A labourer’s child can’t compete fairly with a bureaucrat’s—reservations rectify historical injustice.”
Data Shows SC/ST Still Lag in Representation
Despite decades of affirmative action, NSSO data reveals:
– SCs hold only 17% of IAS posts (vs. 16.6% population share).
– STs occupy 6% of top bureaucratic roles (vs. 8.6% population).
Gavai’s stance challenges the argument that economic status alone should determine quotas.
Mixed Reactions: Social Justice vs. “Merit”
- Pro-Reservation Voices: Dalit activists like ex-MP Dr. Udit Raj argue quotas are “tools for social justice, not poverty relief.”
- Opponents: Figures like Subramanian Swamy demand economic-based quotas, citing poor upper-caste struggles.
Legal Precedents and What’s Next
Key rulings like Jarnail Singh (2018) eased backwardness proof for SC/ST promotions. This case could reshape India’s reservation framework amid demands from Marathas, Jats, and others.
Conclusion: Can India Achieve Real Equity?
Justice Gavai’s remarks spotlight India’s enduring caste divide. As courts weigh “equality vs. equity,” his words underscore: reservations persist until privilege stops dictating opportunity.
Do you support caste-based quotas, or should India switch to economic criteria? Share your views below.
(Word count: 320, condensed for engagement while retaining key facts.)
