The Unseen Scrutiny: Justice Gavai's Personal Stand on SC Quota Sub-Classification

In a candid and revealing moment during a pivotal hearing, Supreme Court Justice B.R. Gavai disclosed the immense personal pressure and criticism he has faced from within his own community regarding his judicial position on the sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes (SC) quota. The admission came as a poignant interlude in the ongoing deliberations of a seven-judge bench, underscoring the profound human element intertwined with complex legal decisions.

The exchange began with Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y.

Chandrachud, who presides over the bench, directly asking Justice Gavai about reports of him facing flak from his community over the matter. Justice Gavai, with a candidness that resonated through the courtroom, affirmed, "Yes, my community members criticised me for the judgement." This statement laid bare the unique challenges faced by judges who hail from communities directly impacted by their rulings, balancing judicial impartiality with deeply personal connections.

The seven-judge bench is currently deliberating a crucial legal question: whether states have the power to sub-classify Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the allocation of reservation benefits.

This issue arises from a 2004 judgment in the E.V. Chinnaiah case, which had ruled against such sub-classification, stating that the SC list must be considered as a single, homogenous group. However, a five-judge bench in 2020 expressed disagreement with this precedent, referring the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration, recognizing the need to address inequities even within reserved categories.

The core argument for sub-classification is rooted in social justice, aiming to ensure that the benefits of reservation are equitably distributed among all groups within the Scheduled Castastes.

It seeks to prevent more dominant or advanced sections within the SC list from disproportionately monopolizing reservations, thus leaving the most marginalized sections behind. Critics of the current 'one size fits all' approach argue that it fails to address the varying degrees of backwardness and deprivation that exist even within the broad SC category.

Justice Gavai, himself from a Scheduled Caste background, finds himself in a position where his judicial oath demands an objective interpretation of the law, potentially leading to decisions that are unpopular with segments of the very community he belongs to.

His acknowledgment of the criticism is a powerful testament to the often-unseen sacrifices and moral fortitude required of judges, particularly when their rulings touch upon deeply entrenched social and identity issues. It highlights the tightrope walk between personal identity and the unwavering commitment to the principles of justice and the rule of law, regardless of the personal cost.