Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala has attacked the Centre following a Supreme Court ruling that declined to extend Scheduled Caste status to Christians, Muslims and other minority groups, arguing the decision has intensified anxiety among economically vulnerable sections within these communities.Speaking on Wednesday, Surjewala said the judgment had triggered “deep consternation, disquiet and fear” among marginalised groups who, he claimed, continue to face social discrimination despite conversion. He accused the government led by Narendra Modi of failing to address longstanding demands for parity in affirmative action policies, particularly for Dalits who have embraced non-Hindu faiths.
The remarks followed the Supreme Court’s position that Scheduled Caste status, as defined under the Constitution Order of 1950, remains restricted to specific religious categories. The Court reiterated that any expansion of the definition falls within the legislative domain and must be addressed by Parliament rather than through judicial intervention. The matter has been under scrutiny for years, with petitions arguing that caste-based discrimination persists across religious lines.
Surjewala contended that the ruling effectively leaves a significant section of historically disadvantaged communities without access to reservation benefits in education, employment and political representation. He argued that the exclusion undermines the principle of equality embedded in the Constitution and called for urgent legislative action to rectify what he described as a structural imbalance.
The debate over extending Scheduled Caste status beyond Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist communities has long divided policymakers and legal experts. Proponents argue that caste identity and discrimination are rooted in social hierarchies that transcend religion, citing field studies and sociological research indicating that Dalits who convert often continue to face exclusion and economic hardship. Opponents, however, maintain that the constitutional framework was designed to address specific historical injustices tied to the Hindu caste system, and that altering the definition could dilute targeted welfare measures.
Government representatives have previously indicated that the issue requires careful consideration, balancing constitutional provisions with socio-political implications. A commission tasked with examining the question has been reviewing data on caste discrimination among converted communities, though its findings have yet to translate into concrete policy changes.
The Supreme Court’s stance reflects a consistent judicial approach that emphasises the separation of powers. By deferring to Parliament, the Court has underscored that any modification to the Scheduled Castes list must be enacted through legislative amendment. Legal analysts note that this position aligns with earlier judgments, where the judiciary has refrained from redefining categories that carry significant policy and fiscal consequences.
Political reactions have been sharply polarised. While opposition parties have framed the issue as one of social justice and inclusion, leaders within the ruling establishment have stressed the need for empirical evidence and consensus before any expansion of reservation categories. The question has also surfaced in electoral discourse, particularly in states with sizeable Dalit and minority populations, where demands for broader recognition have gained traction.
Social activists working with marginalised communities have echoed concerns about the implications of the ruling. They argue that denial of Scheduled Caste status restricts access to critical welfare schemes, exacerbating existing inequalities. Some have pointed to disparities in literacy rates, employment opportunities and access to public services as indicators of continued disadvantage among Dalits who have converted to Christianity or Islam.
At the same time, policy experts caution that any change to the reservation framework must account for competing claims among different disadvantaged groups. Expanding eligibility could lead to increased pressure on limited quotas, potentially affecting beneficiaries within existing categories. This has led to calls for a more nuanced approach, including the possibility of creating separate classifications or enhancing support mechanisms outside the reservation system.