BJP MPs from both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha representing the SC/ST communities met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and presented a memorandum concerning the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the “creamy layer” within SC/ST communities, requesting that this decision not be enforced.
NEW DELHI: On Friday (9th Aug): BJP MPs from both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha representing the SC/ST communities met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the Parliament House. They presented a memorandum concerning the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the “creamy layer” within SC/ST communities, requesting that this decision not be enforced.
Following the meeting, PM Modi posted on X,
“Reiterated our commitment and resolve for the welfare and empowerment of the SC/ST communities.”
The Supreme Court recently stated that states must identify the “creamy layer” within Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) and exclude them from quota benefits.
Following the meeting, BJP MP Prof. (Dr.) Sikander Kumar reported that PM Modi assured the MPs that the government would address their concerns.
“A few days ago, the SC issued a decision on SC/ST reservations. Today, a delegation of around 100 MPs from both Houses met with PM Modi, and he assured us that the government would support our position,”
Kumar said.
READ ALSO: Sub-Classifying SCs & STs|| Seven-Judge Constitution Bench to Deliver Verdict Tomorrow
BJP MP Faggan Singh Kulaste added that the Prime Minister agreed that the SC’s decision regarding the creamy layer should not be implemented.
“We told the PM that the decision to exclude the creamy layer from reservation benefits should not be enforced, and the PM agreed,”
Kulaste stated.
Union Minister Chirag Paswan, expressing his disagreement with the Supreme Court’s ruling, announced that the Lok Jan Shakti Party (Ram Vilas) would file a review petition against the decision.
On August 1, the Supreme Court ruled that states can sub-classify SCs and STs, with the authority to evaluate whether these groups are adequately represented based on effective, rather than just quantitative, representation. The court, in a 6:1 majority decision, permitted sub-classification within SC/ST reservations. T
his judgment, delivered by a seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, overturned the previous EV Chinnaiah ruling that had deemed such sub-classification impermissible.
The bench, which included Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, received six separate opinions. Justice BR Gavai suggested developing a policy for identifying the creamy layer within SCs and STs. However, Justice Bela M. Trivedi dissented, opposing the majority’s ruling on the permissibility of sub-classification.
The earlier judgment had held that sub-classification of SC/STs was contrary to Article 341 of the Constitution, which grants the President the authority to prepare the list of SC/STs.
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Bela M Trivedi ruled that such sub-classification is not permissible. However, the majority upheld the sub-classification, stating,
“The members of SC/ST are not often able to climb up the ladder due to the systemic discrimination faced. Article 14 permits sub-classification of caste. Court must check if a class is homogeneous or and a class not integrated for a purpose can be further classified.”
The Court validated laws that provide for such sub-classification in Punjab, Tamil Nadu, and other States. Specifically, the Court upheld the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, and the Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars (Special Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State within the Reservation for the Scheduled Castes) Act, 2009. These laws provide special reservations for sub-groups within the broader category of Scheduled Castes.
The judgment originated from a challenge to the validity of the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006. This law was initially struck down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, prompting the Punjab government to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The laws were contested based on the 2005 Constitution Bench judgment in EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which asserted that all SCs form a homogeneous class that cannot be sub-divided. The matter was referred to a seven-judge bench in 2020 after a five-judge bench expressed disagreement with the EV Chinnaiah decision, which had declared sub-categorisation of castes unconstitutional.
During the hearings, the CJI distinguished between “sub-classification” and “sub-categorisation” of communities, noting that inclusion or exclusion of communities should not be reduced to appeasement politics. The Court observed that the Punjab government’s law might have aimed to exclude candidates from the reserved category who had already benefited from existing relaxations.
The Central government supported reservations for downtrodden classes in India and favored sub-classification. States argued that sub-classification of SC/STs does not violate Article 341, as it does not alter the list prepared by the President.
They contended that Article 341 pertains solely to the preparation of the list of SCs and does not prevent States from sub-classifying SCs based on their backwardness to extend reservation benefits.
Ultimately, the Court’s ruling affirmed that States have the power to sub-classify reserved category groups to address the varying levels of backwardness within these groups and ensure more equitable distribution of reservation benefits.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
