A new report published by the Supreme Court of India’s Centre for Research and Planning (CRP) says judicial discourse on caste over the past seven decades has been marked by contradictory narratives, ranging from strong condemnations of caste hierarchy to descriptions that risk reinforcing stigma or downplaying structural discrimination.
“It becomes clear that judicial descriptions of caste and of marginalised groups carry significant normative weight: they influence how the law imagines dignity, equality, merit, and the role of the State in undoing historical wrongs and facilitating inclusive development,” the report reads.
The 2025 report analyses Constitution Bench judgments on affirmative action, personal laws and caste-based atrocities from 1950 to 2025, limiting its scope to benches of five or more judges. It highlights inconsistencies in how the Court has understood caste, the language used to describe oppressed communities, and the tools the judiciary has endorsed to remedy caste-based inequalities.
The report is prepared by Anurag Bhaskar, Director, Centre for Research and Planning, Dr Farrah Ahmed, Professor of Law, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Bhimraj Muthu, Doctoral Researcher (DPhil) in Law, University of Oxford and Shubham Kumar, Consultant (Research), Centre for Research and Planning.
According to the study, Supreme Court judges have alternated between describing caste as a rigid, hereditary hierarchy rooted in purity and pollution, and portraying it as an originally “benign” occupational system distorted over time. While several judgments acknowledge caste as an enduring structure shaping access to education, employment and public life, others lean on scriptural narratives that obscure lived experiences of oppression.
The report also points to divergent views within the Court on whether caste is confined to Hinduism or is a broader social phenomenon that cuts across religions. Some benches tied caste to Hindu theology, while others recognised caste-like hierarchies among Christians, Muslims and Sikhs, noting that conversion does not erase caste identity or stigma.
Examining how the Court has described oppressed caste communities, the report notes a shift from earlier judgments that used paternalistic metaphors — comparing disadvantage to “handicap,” invoking imagery of “race horses,” or calling affirmative action “crutches” — to later opinions that affirm dignity, highlight historical discrimination, and critique the social construction of merit. The authors warn that earlier formulations risk reproducing stigma and treating reservations as charity rather than a constitutional guarantee.
On remedies for caste injustice, the report identifies five recurring judicial approaches: emphasizing education as the primary tool of social transformation; upholding caste-based reservations as essential for substantive equality; prioritizing poverty over caste as a marker of backwardness; framing development as the key to upliftment; and placing responsibility on the private sector. These strands, it says, reveal ongoing disagreement over how backwardness should be diagnosed and addressed under the Constitution.
The CRP clarified that the report does not critique individual judges, stressing institutional neutrality and its aim to promote sensitivity within the justice system. It proposes future steps, including the adoption of inclusive terminology, deeper engagement with the social realities of caste, and more context-sensitive judicial language aligned with the Constitution’s mandate of equality and dignity.
