Supreme Court Justice Pankaj Mithal’s anti-reservation remarks draw criticism

Many, including human rights activists and legal experts, took to social media to criticize the anti-reservation remarks made by Supreme Court Justice Pankaj Mithal in today’s ruling that allowed sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

“There was no caste system in primitive India. Slowly, the prevailing varna system was misinterpreted as a caste system… With the adoption of the Constitution, we tried to become a casteless society again, but in the name of social welfare to uplift the oppressed and backward classes, we again fell into the trap of casteism,” Justice Pankaj Mithal said in his judgment allowing sub-classification of SCs.

The seven-judge Constitution Bench ruled by a majority of 6:1 that the division of reserved category groups – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes – was legal. Though six judges were in favour, Justice Bela Trivedi dissented.

“Reservation should be meant only for the first generation in a category,” Justice Pankaj Mithal said. Justice Mithal also called for periodic review of reservation to check whether the “second generation is standing shoulder to shoulder with the general category.”

“Reservation should be meant only for the first generation within a category and if the second generation has moved up, then the benefits of reservation are not extended and the state after reservation has to see whether the second generation is standing shoulder to shoulder with the general category,” Justice Mithal said.

“Judges should inculcate scientific temperament and intellect. Quoting from a religious text written by someone is your personal belief, it can be used to justify varna or caste. Where is data and real examples with authenticity. Okay, how many SC students interned with you?” says Dr Poonam Jayant S, ARS.

“It is interesting to note that there is no reference in Justice Mithal’s verdict to any of the writings of Dr BR Ambedkar,” said Manu Sebastian, Editor-in-Chief of Live Law.

“This is extremely ignorant – I understand their area of ​​expertise is the Constitution, but shouldn’t judges be expected to read a book or two on caste before deciding the fate of millions of people?” wrote Sarayu Pani on X.

“Why would you say you’re making a collective judgment if it’s just a rant,” says author Rohit De, an assistant professor of history at Yale University.