Justice Chandrachud: ‘Outlawing untouchability hasn’t ended discrimination’

The mere outlawing of untouchability and different egregious caste atrocities haven’t put an finish to discrimination, however what was overt has now grow to be systemic, Supreme Court choose Justice D Y Chandrachud has stated.
“Over 70 years after the Constitution came into force, many argue that caste-based discrimination no longer exists merely because untouchability and other egregious caste atrocities have been outlawed. However, a close look at our society and its constituted system reveals the existence of entrenched structures which are also proxies for upholding casteist, able-ist and gendered hierarchies,” Justice Chandrachud stated on the launch of the Community for the Eradication of Discrimination in Education and Employment (CEDE), a community of legal professionals, regulation corporations, judges, and different organisations and people, working in direction of reforming the authorized career.
The digital occasion was held on Wednesday.
He stated, “Discrimination is built into their operation. This may not play out directly as oppression and segregation, but it continues to perpetuate a similar effect. Hence the overt discrimination has now become systemic.”
Justice Chandrachud recalled that he had “explored and studied this issue” in a judgment final month concerning everlasting fee for ladies officers within the Army, which was an offshoot of its February 2020 resolution in The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Others case, wherein the court docket had directed the federal government to make sure that ladies Short Service Commission officers are given everlasting fee within the Army, together with command postings.

“Even after the decision in Babita Puniya, a sizeable number of these women had to knock at the doors of SC on the methodolgy through which permanent commission was to be granted to these women officers,” he stated. “Authorities argued that they were merely applying the same medical and evaluation criteria as applicable to the male officers…” however the court docket discovered that “a case of indirect discrimination” was made out.
“Discrimination translates into inferior gender roles for women, underpaid and exploitative jobs for Bahujans, and poverty, marginalisation and isolation for persons with disabilities,” he stated.
Justice Chandrachud stated that “the legal fraternity, in its fragmented structure of professional service, is endemic to these forms of discrimination. Corporate law firms in our country could still have some semblance of a formal hierarchy of structure which will enable some counter measures to exist. However, their private forms and the lack of a comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation in India renders marginalised groups without enforceable recourse in law”.
He additionally touched upon what he stated is discrimination “under the guise of merit” and identified that’s mirrored in conversations surrounding reservations. “Those who goal reservations in public employment argue that reservations stop the meritorious from getting their justifiable share, whereas the unmeritorious get it merely due to reservations and decrease the requirements and high quality of establishments. However, arguments of this nature miss the purpose about what advantage really means. If we outline advantage in an exclusionary sense, our solutions will make sure the exclusion of the marginalised.

“If on the other hand, merit is defined as a value which promotes an inclusive society, our answers will ensure inclusion”, he stated.
Justice Chandrachud pointed to discrimination present in authorized schooling and stated that many of the high regulation colleges, which supply the five-year built-in regulation course, conduct admissions by way of a aggressive check which is barely in English, in addition to English additionally being a separate part of testing. As a consequence, solely the privileged, with entry to high-quality English medium schooling, are capable of qualify, whereas the underprivileged college students, whose earlier schooling has been in different languages and who aspire to enter into the judicial companies, are disadvantaged of studying at these establishments.