“Removal of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud” have sparked widespread debate,the controversy revolves around a recent Supreme Court (SC) decision concerning reservations, which has led to intense reactions and viral posts questioning the situation.
NEW DELHI: Recent calls for the “removal of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud” have sparked widespread debate, though this issue is not related to the NEET UG 2024 ruling. Instead, the controversy revolves around a recent Supreme Court (SC) decision concerning reservations, which has led to intense reactions and viral posts questioning the situation.
READ ALSO: [Nagaland Reservation Policy] 33% Reservation for Women in Nagaland Finally Approved
The controversy began with a decision by a 7-judge bench of the SC regarding sub-classification in reservations. Under the leadership of CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, this bench included Justices B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma.
They ruled by a 6:1 majority that state governments are permitted to grant reservations within a caste to sub-categories to benefit those who remain disadvantaged despite existing reservations.
While this decision has been welcomed by central and state governments and even the opposition, there are significant dissenters who are so displeased with the ruling that they are calling for CJI Chandrachud’s removal. It is worth noting that CJI Chandrachud’s term is set to end in November.
The core of the dissent comes from those who support reservations. The SC’s ruling, although in favor of reservations, introduced a contentious point: the inclusion of a creamy layer provision within SC/ST reservations, similar to the one already applied to OBC reservations.
The SC stated,
“The state should develop a policy for identifying the creamy layer within the SC/ST categories and exclude them from reservation benefits. This is the correct way to achieve equality.”
Opponents of this creamy layer provision argue that SC/ST communities still do not receive adequate benefits, and the Court’s move to include this provision adds to their grievances.
Prominent figures such as Prakash Ambedkar, President of Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA) and grandson of B.R. Ambedkar, are leading the fight against this decision. Justice B.R. Gavai, himself from a Dalit community, has supported the creamy layer provision and cited B.R. Ambedkar in his argument.
Prakash Ambedkar has stated,
“The state is not equipped to carry out sub-classification for SCs. If it is necessary, it should be done only by Parliament.”
Lok Sabha MP Chandrashekhar Azad has echoed this concern, arguing that granting states such powers might lead to misuse for political gains.
He questioned,
“Does this not violate Article 341? I want marginalized groups to benefit, but the way policies are implemented does not guarantee benefits to backward classes.”
Even those who agree with the SC’s decision are troubled by the delegation of sub-classification powers to state governments, which they believe should be the domain of Parliament or the President, as per Article 341.
However, the SC clarified that
“The state can assess internal backwardness through any measures. If the criteria is untouchability, it does not necessarily mean that internal backwardness will be assessed on the same basis. The state must prove this with empirical and quantitative data. It cannot act based on its wishes or political convenience and is subject to judicial review.”
This implies that state Governments cannot grant reservations to any caste or category arbitrarily, and their decisions are subject to judicial review. Despite this, many remain dissatisfied with the ruling. Independent MP Pappu Yadav has also commented on the issue.
