In 2004, the Ranganath Mishra Commission, established ostensibly to address the concerns of religious and linguistic minorities, particularly Muslims, serves as a prime example of the intricate interplay between judiciary and politics in India. This Commission was led by Justice Ranganath Mishra, a figure with deep-rooted connections to the Congress party.
Who was Ranganath Mishra?
Ranganath was the youngest of three sons to his parents, with his eldest brother Lokanath Misra serving as a prominent politician in the Swatantra Party and later the Janata Party. Lokanath’s son, Pinaki Misra, currently serves as a Lok Sabha MP for the Biju Janata Dal. Ranganath’s second brother, Raghunath Misra, was a Congress politician and member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly. Notably, Raghunath’s son, Dipak Misra, served as the 45th Chief Justice of India. Ranganath Mishra himself held esteemed positions, including Chief Justice of India and Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, and served as a Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha for the Congress party.
It is noteworthy that Ranganath Mishra also served as the sole member of the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission of Inquiry, tasked with investigating the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and presenting a report. However, it was noted that the Commission’s terms of reference were alleged to be biased against the victims. The burden of proof was unfairly placed on the victims during the investigation. While the Commission indicted 19 workers of the Congress accused by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties of abetting the riots, it absolved the Congress party of any wrongdoing.
Ranganath Mishra Commission – Manipulating Minority Rights
The Commission was initially assigned the following tasks (terms of reference):
- To propose criteria for identifying socially and economically backward sections among religious and linguistic minorities;
- To recommend measures for the welfare of these socially and economically backward sections, including reservations in education and government employment;
- To suggest the constitutional, legal, and administrative steps necessary to implement its recommendations.
After nearly five months, the commission’s Terms of Reference were revised to include an additional task:
To provide recommendations on the issues raised in WPs 180/04 and 94/05 filed in the Supreme Court of India, and in certain High Courts, concerning Paragraph 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950, particularly in relation to the 50% ceiling on reservations and the process for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes.
The Commission’s mandate extended beyond evaluating minority conditions to include a contentious exploration of whether Muslims should be classified as Scheduled Castes, a move that would have significant ramifications for India’s caste dynamics.
On September 28, 2005, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment tasked the Commission with analyzing the possibility of including Muslims in the Scheduled Caste category, a decision that opened Pandora’s box. By venturing into caste-based deliberations, the Commission strayed from its original purpose and delved into uncharted territory.
The impact of the appeasement-led recommendations
The Commission’s recommendations, if implemented, would have had profound consequences for India’s socio-political fabric. The proposal to include Dalit Muslims and Dalit Christians in the Scheduled Caste category, without adequate empirical evidence or consideration of their unique socio-economic circumstances, risked diluting the benefits meant for traditional Scheduled Castes. The Commission recommended that a 10% quota be allocated for Muslims and 5% for other minorities in government jobs and seats in higher educational institutions (graduation and above), 8.4% reservation implemented out of the existing 27% OBC quota for religious minorities, primarily Muslims.
Furthermore, the Commission’s suggestion to rename the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to include “Scheduled Caste Converted” revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of the Act’s intent. This revision would have created legal loopholes, potentially undermining protections for Scheduled Castes and perpetuating discrimination.
In the Commission Report, point 16.3.3 states, “We recommend that the caste system should be recognised as a general social characteristic of the Indian society as a whole, without questioning whether the philosophy and teachings of any particular religion recognise it or not – since the Indian brands of certain faith traditions like Christianity and Islam have never assimilated many puritan principles of those religions, posing this question in respect of the caste system only and singling out for a differential treatment is unreasonable and unrealistic.”
The next point 16.3.4. reads, “We would like this fact to be duly recognised that among the Muslims of India, the concepts of zat (caste) and arzal (lower castes) are very much in practice; and even the Muslim law of marriage recognises the doctrine of kufw –parity in marriage between the parties in all vital respects including social status and descent – which in this country means nothing but caste.”
16.3.5. In view of what has been said above, we recommend that Para 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 – which originally restricted the Scheduled Caste net to the Hindus and later opened it to Sikhs and Buddhists, thus still excluding from its purview the Muslims, Christians, Jains and Parsis, etc. – should be wholly deleted by appropriate action so as to completely de-link the Scheduled Caste status from religion and make the Scheduled Castes net fully religion-neutral like that of the Scheduled Tribes.
16.3.6. reads, “We further recommend that all those groups and classes among the Muslims and Christians, etc. whose counterparts among the Hindus, Sikhs or Buddhists, are included in the Central or State Scheduled Castes lists should also be covered by the Scheduled Caste net. If any such group or class among the Muslims and Christians, etc. is now included in an OBC list, it should be deleted from there while transferring it to the Scheduled Castes – placing the same persons in the Scheduled Caste list if they are Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist but in the OBC list if they follow any other religion – which is the case in many States – in our opinion clearly amounts to religion-based discrimination.”
Here comes the clincher. 16.3.7. reads, “We further recommend that as the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of conscience and religious freedom as a Fundamental Right, once a person has been included in a Scheduled Caste list a willful change of religion on his part should not affect adversely his or her Scheduled Caste status – as that would in our opinion conflict with the basic constitutional provisions relating to equality, justice and non-discrimination on religious grounds; as also with the spirit of the old and time tested Caste Disabilities Removal Act of 1850.”
While the Commission’s recommendations did not materialize into law, they serve as a stark reminder of the dangers of political interference in institutional mechanisms. Justice Ranganath Mishra’s connections to the Congress party, coupled with the Commission’s foray into caste-based deliberations, underscore the need for greater scrutiny and vigilance to safeguard minority rights from partisan agendas.
The Ranganath Mishra Commission’s attempt to manipulate minority rights for political gain is very much a cornerstone of the Congress’ policies. This attempt at including minorities especially Muslims in the SC category and giving them additional reservations was in line with former PM Manmohan Singh’s statement that “minorities have first right over resources”.
