CONSTITUTIONALISM AND THE PROGRESSION FROM FORMAL TO SUBSTANTIVE EQUALITY IN INDIA

The evolution of Indian constitutional law has undergone a remarkable transformation, moving from a rigid notion of formal equality, which mandates uniform treatment for all individuals under the law, to a more dynamic and nuanced understanding of substantive equality. Substantive equality recognizes that treating individuals equally does not always yield equitable outcomes, especially for those historically disadvantaged by systemic discrimination, such as Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). This shift is most evident in the judiciary’s approach to affirmative action policies and the constitutional provisions for reservations, aimed at addressing socio-economic inequalities and fostering inclusive growth.

This paper delves into the Indian judiciary’s growing commitment to substantive equality, tracing its journey through landmark judgments. Beginning with Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, the paper examines the legal basis for reservations and the recognition of socio-economic backwardness as a criterion for affirmative action. The discussion extends to M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court upheld reservations in promotions but emphasized the need for quantifiable data to justify such measures, ensuring that affirmative action remained grounded in demonstrable need.

The paper also explores State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh which raised questions about sub-categorization within marginalized communities. These cases highlight the tension between ensuring equitable distribution of benefits within SCs and STs and the risk of fragmenting collective identities. Through these judicial interpretations, the research traces how Indian constitutionalism has increasingly recognized the need for a more substantive approach to equality, one that actively seeks to remedy historical injustices while balancing the need for social cohesion.