In a first-of-its-kind institutional exercise, the Supreme Court has released a report on “judicial conceptions of caste” that urges judges to adopt constitutionally sensitive vocabulary in caste-related litigation.
Stressing caste is not a historical relic but a continuing constitutional concern, the report says judicial discourse must reject outdated terminology, interrogate inherited assumptions, and recognise caste as a structure of persistent disadvantage shaping opportunity in India.
Prepared by the Supreme Court’s in-house think tank, the Centre for Research and Planning (CRP), the report studies seven decades of constitution bench judgments on reservations, atrocities laws and personal laws to map how the court described caste, oppressed communities and remedies. It notes that judicial language plays a decisive role in shaping legal doctrine and reinforcing—or dismantling—public notions of equality, dignity and merit.
Released under the guidance of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai, the first Buddhist and second Dalit to serve as the country’s first judge, the report finds judicial articulations of caste have long oscillated between two strands: one acknowledges caste as a hereditary hierarchy rooted in power and exclusion; the other invokes idealised scriptural accounts portraying it as a benign occupational order limited to Hinduism. This tension has sometimes obscured social realities, particularly caste-like hierarchies among Muslims, Christians and Sikhs, and the fact that conversion does not erase stigma.
Judicial characterisation of oppressed groups has been equally uneven. Early judgments occasionally used paternalistic language, including metaphors likening caste disadvantage to “handicaps” or outdated terms such as “Harijan” and “Girijan”, inadvertently reinforcing stigma. The court has since shifted towards dignity-oriented vocabulary, foregrounding historical discrimination and the structural nature of caste exclusion.
{{/usCountry}}Judicial characterisation of oppressed groups has been equally uneven. Early judgments occasionally used paternalistic language, including metaphors likening caste disadvantage to “handicaps” or outdated terms such as “Harijan” and “Girijan”, inadvertently reinforcing stigma. The court has since shifted towards dignity-oriented vocabulary, foregrounding historical discrimination and the structural nature of caste exclusion.
{{/usCountry}}The study also tracks shifting views on constitutional tools needed to remedy caste-based injustice. While some benches identified education as the primary instrument of uplift, others saw reservations as essential for substantive equality. A competing strand emphasised poverty over caste as the key determinant of backwardness, while another highlighted the role of broader socio-economic development in redressing inequality.
Emphasising judicial engagement with caste is not monolithic, the report argues court descriptions and metaphors carry normative weight, shaping how the law imagines merit, equality, disadvantage and state obligations.
It highlights moments the court advanced the Constitution’s transformative vision, affirming dignity and structural change, while noting instances where discourse reproduced stereotypes or lacked appreciation of lived realities.
Calling for a context-sensitive vocabulary aligned with constitutional values, the report urges judges to avoid reductive terminology and affirm the agency and dignity of oppressed communities. This shift, it argues, is essential to strengthen the Constitution’s social justice project.
The CRP notes this initiative builds on earlier publications like the Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes, reflecting a commitment to addressing bias. The study is intended as a resource for judicial academies, policymakers and researchers.
The report was authored by Anurag Bhaskar, director, CRP; Farrah Ahmed, professor of law, Melbourne Law School; Bhimraj Muthu, doctoral researcher, University of Oxford; and Shubham Kumar, consultant, CRP.