SC Sub-categorization: Recommendations Misrepresented As Verdicts Sparks Nationwide Protests

Andhra Pradesh (Before It’s News – IC): The Supreme Court’s observations on SC sub-categorization, delivered by a seven-judge Constitution Bench on August 1, 2024, have ignited a contentious debate and nationwide protests. While some proponents consider these remarks a binding verdict, others argue that they are mere suggestions, calling for a clear distinction between judicial advice and rulings.

• Not a verdict, just recommendations

The Supreme Court’s suggestions on SC sub-categorization are being widely misinterpreted as a binding verdict. Legal experts emphasize that if these were an actual judgment, proponents like Dandora Mandakrishna could have initiated contempt proceedings against governments failing to implement it. However, no such legal action has been possible, confirming the advisory nature of these observations.

• Why the advocacy continues?

Despite this, pro-categorization activists, led by Mandakrishna, continue to appeal to Chief Ministers in Telugu states for implementation. Critics question why such lobbying is necessary if the Supreme Court’s words held the weight of a verdict. Anti-categorization groups argue that these efforts are fueling confusion and misrepresentation.

• A hidden agenda?

Opponents allege a deeper conspiracy behind the push for SC sub-categorization. They claim it seeks to create divisions among Scheduled Castes under the guise of judicial legitimacy. The non-implementation of numerous actual Supreme Court verdicts by state governments casts further doubt on the urgency to act on non-binding recommendations.

• Role of anti-categorization advocates

Anti-categorization proponents have ramped up efforts to counter the misrepresentation of the Supreme Court’s advice as a verdict. They warn that repeated references to these recommendations as judgments only strengthen the narrative of pro-categorization groups, inadvertently benefiting leaders like Mandakrishna and their partisan narratives. 

• A call for judicial clarity

To prevent further misunderstandings, the Supreme Court must clarify that its August 1 observations are advisory in nature. Such clarification would mitigate the risk of these recommendations being misconstrued as binding decisions, thereby preserving judicial integrity and public trust.

The ongoing discourse on SC sub-categorization underscores the importance of distinguishing judicial advice from enforceable rulings. As protests are escalating, both the judiciary and political stakeholders must prioritize transparency and legal precision to prevent misinterpretation and protect the unity of marginalized communities. 

The views expressed in this column are solely those of SR Vemana, Honorary President of the Bheem Sena Welfare Association and Chief Advisor of Vidasam United Forum.

(Source: IAIJ/BIN/DPJB)