Supreme court: States can sub-classify Scheduled Castes (SCs) for quotas.
Context:
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India, in a 6:1 majority ruling, allowed states to sub-classify Scheduled Castes (SCs) notified in the Presidential List for providing preferential treatment in public employment and education.
- This decision by a seven-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, emphasized the need to address inequalities within the SC community.
Relevance:
GS-02 (Polity)
Key Highlights:
- Sub-Classifications Permitted: States can sub-classify SCs and STs based on varying levels of backwardness within the 15% reservation quota.
- Empirical Basis: Sub-classification must be based on empirical data and historical evidence of systemic discrimination, not arbitrary or political reasons.
- No 100% Reservation: The court clarified that 100% reservation for any sub-class is not permissible, and state decisions on sub-classification are subject to judicial review.
- Creamy Layer Principle: The principle, previously applied to Other Backward Classes (OBCs), should now also apply to SCs and STs. States must identify and exclude the creamy layer within these groups from reservation benefits.
- First Generation Reservation: Reservation benefits are to be limited to the first generation. If any generation has taken advantage of reservation and achieved a higher status, the benefit would not be logically available to the second generation.
What is the Judgment About?
- The Supreme Court ruled that states are constitutionally allowed to sub-classify SCs and STs to provide better support for the most disadvantaged groups.
- This ruling permits states to sub-classify SCs within the reservation quota to ensure that affirmative action benefits reach those who are truly disadvantaged.
- The judgment also calls for the implementation of the creamy layer principle for SCs and STs to exclude affluent individuals from reservation benefits.
Need for Such a Move:
- Systemic discrimination and varying levels of backwardness among SCs and STs prevent some members from advancing.
- The sub-classification aims to address these disparities by tailoring reservation policies to more effectively support the most disadvantaged within these groups.
- The introduction of the creamy layer principle ensures that reservation benefits are not monopolized by relatively affluent members of these communities.
Its Significance:
- Enhanced Equality: Ensures that the most disadvantaged within SCs and STs receive the intended benefits of affirmative action.
- Focused Upliftment: Tailors reservation policies to address specific needs and disparities within SCs and STs, promoting substantive equality.
- Preventing Misuse: Judicial review and empirical basis requirements prevent political misuse of sub-classification and ensure fairness.
Arguments Against the Decision:
- Potential for Political Misuse: Critics argue that sub-classification could be exploited by political parties to expand their vote banks, leading to favoritism and the further entrenchment of political divisions within SC and ST communities.
- Complexity and Administrative Challenges: Implementing sub-classifications requires detailed empirical studies and historical evidence, which could be logistically complex and resource-intensive. There are concerns about the capacity of state governments to carry out these studies effectively.
- Fragmentation of Unity: Sub-classifying SCs and STs might lead to fragmentation within these communities, weakening their collective bargaining power and unity. It could create new intra-group hierarchies and tensions.
- Dilution of Affirmative Action: There is a fear that introducing the creamy layer principle could dilute the impact of affirmative action policies. It might reduce the overall number of individuals who can benefit from reservations, potentially excluding those still facing significant social disadvantages.
- Potential Legal Challenges: The decision might lead to a slew of legal challenges and litigations from various groups within SCs and STs, contesting their sub-classification status, which could bog down the system and delay benefits.
- Historical Precedent: Some critics cite historical precedent, arguing that the Constitution’s framers intended for SCs and STs to be treated as homogeneous groups in terms of reservation benefits. They believe sub-classification undermines this original intent.
Way Forward:
- Empirical Studies: States should conduct detailed empirical studies to identify varying levels of backwardness within SCs and STs.
- Policy Formulation: Develop clear policies to implement the creamy layer principle for SCs and STs, ensuring exclusion of affluent individuals.
- Monitoring and Review: Regular monitoring and judicial review of state decisions on sub-classification to prevent misuse and ensure effectiveness.
- Awareness and Training: Create awareness and provide training to implement the new policies effectively at all administrative levels.
Conclusion:
This judgment marks a significant step towards achieving substantive equality and addressing the complexities of social justice within India’s reservation system.
