The 3 C’s Of Equality: Caste, Census And Constitution Under Pil Scrutiny
- IJLLR Journal
- 4 hours ago
- 2 min read
Snigdha Das, Calcutta University
ABSTRACT
This paper investigates whether caste can serve as the definitive constitutional yardstick for backwardness under Article 15 or if jurisprudence has rendered such singular categories obsolete. While Public Interest Litigation (PIL) promised to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, decades of Article 15 litigation reveal a deep structural stagnation, exposing a "paternalism paradox" where the Court oscillates between treating caste as an historical truth and demanding rigorous statistical validation. As a fresh caste census looms, this inquiry moves beyond academic speculation to confront whether caste will be reaffirmed as a self-evident historical wrong or reduced to a metric that marginalized communities must constantly re-prove.
INTRODUCTION
As India prepares for its first caste-enumerated census in nearly a century, the old constitutional question resurfaces with a new urgency. Can caste singlehandedly serve as the constitutional yardstick of backwardness under Article 15 or has the Court's jurisprudence outgrown the categories it once relied upon?
The democratization of justice through PIL sought to dismantle India’s ‘graded inequality', yet a central paradox persists, whether the Court is advancing substantive equality under Article 15 or merely producing ‘symbolic victories’ that fail to disrupt entrenched structures of discrimination.
The discussions around PIL as a vehicle of social justice, aimed at reaching those in need, are closely linked to the enforcement of equality under Article 15. Yet, despite sustained judicial perseverance, significant gaps in implementation continue to limit its effectiveness. This study, therefore, attempts to trace the root causes of this phenomenon and evaluate whether the outcomes it produces hold relevance in lived reality. The key findings of this study identify that, although PIL, developed through the constitutional remedies under Articles 32 and 226, has emerged as an indispensable mechanism for enforcing Article 15, its impactful conclusion still remains beyond the practical accessibility of the have-nots. Even societal adaptation remains gradual, due to inconsistent reasoning, stereotypical mindsets, and paternalistic undertones as the justice-on-paper remains largely symbolic. Adopting a doctrinal method based on judicial analysis, the paper examines Article 15 and the role of PIL evaluating its definitions, scope, effectiveness, broader implications and loopholes that are criticised more often, but rarely talked about.
