Today, On 1st August, The Supreme Court of India, in a recent observation, emphasized the need for a refined policy to identify the “creamy layer” within the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) communities. Justice Bhushan Gavai suggested that the existing methods for determining this subset might need reevaluation to ensure that the benefits of affirmative action are distributed more equitably among the truly disadvantaged.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, On Thursday, emphasized the need to identify the creamy layer within the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Four out of the seven judges on the Constitution Bench proposed excluding these individuals from affirmative reservation benefits.
Justice BR Gavai recommended that the state develop a policy to identify the creamy layer among SCs and STs. This suggestion was part of the judgment delivered by the seven-judge bench, where a majority of 6:1 ruled that sub-classification within SCs and STs is permissible.
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, overturned an earlier judgment in the EV Chinnaiah case, which held that sub-classification was not allowed because SCs and STs form homogenous classes.
Joining CJI Chandrachud on the bench were Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Bela M Trivedi disagreed with the majority’s view that sub-classification within SCs and STs is permissible.
Justice Gavai stated,
“The state must evolve a policy for identifying the creamy layer within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to exclude them from the benefit of affirmative action. In my view, only this and this alone can achieve the real equality as enshrined under the Constitution.”
He further noted that the criteria for excluding the creamy layer among SCs and STs for affirmative action purposes could differ from those applied to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
The communal clashes in northeast Delhi on February 24, 2020, triggered by escalating violence between supporters and protesters of the citizenship law, resulting in at least 53 deaths and approximately 700 injuries. The FIR filed at Jagat Puri police station noted that a mob gathered in Masjidwali Gali in Khureji Khas on February 26, 2020, defied police orders to disperse, hurled stones, and assaulted police personnel, with one individual firing a gunshot at head constable Yograj.
Expressing views similar to those of Justice Gavai, Justices Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, and Satish Chandra Sharma concurred on excluding the creamy layer from affirmative action for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs).
In the order, Justice Vikram Nath stated,
“I am also in agreement with the opinion of Brother Justice Gavai that the ‘creamy layer’ principle is also applicable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and that the criteria for exclusion of creamy layer for affirmative action could be different from the criteria as applicable to the other backward classes.”
Justice Pankaj Mithal shared a similar opinion, noting,
“It is reiterated that periodical exercise has to be undertaken to exclude the class of person who after taking advantage of reservation has come to march, shoulder to shoulder with the general category.”
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma echoed these sentiments, emphasizing that identifying the ‘creamy layer’ among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should become a constitutional imperative for the state.
He remarked,
“However, on the question of the applicability of the ‘creamy layer principle’ to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, I find myself in agreement with the view expressed by Justice Gavai, i.e., for the full realization of substantive equality between the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the identification of the ‘creamy layer’ qua Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ought to become a constitutional imperative for the State.”
Justice Gavai, in his order, highlighted the prevalent disparities and social discrimination in rural areas.
He argued,
“I have no hesitation in holding that putting a child studying at St Paul’s High School and St. Stephen’s College and a child studying in a small village in a backward and remote area of the country in the same bracket would obliviate the equality principle enshrined in the Constitution.”
He noted that some officers from the SC/ST categories, after benefiting from reservation, achieved high positions and are contributing back to society by providing coaching and other facilities to the less advantaged.
However, he added,
“putting the children of the parents from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who on account of the benefit of the reservation have reached a high position and ceased to be social, economically and educationally backward and the children of parents doing manual work in the villages in the same category would defeat the constitutional mandate.”
He further observed,
“the parameters for exclusion from affirmative action of the person belonging to this category may not be the same that applies to the other classes. If a person from such a category, by bagging the benefit of reservation, achieved a position of a peon or maybe a sweeper, he would continue to belong to the socially, economically, and educationally backward class.”
Conversely, those who have reached high positions should, on their own accord, relinquish special provisions to benefit the deserving and needy.
Justice Gavai also cited Dr. BR Ambedkar’s observation,
“History shows that where ethics and economics come into conflict, victory is always with economics. Vested interests have never been known to have willingly divested themselves unless there was sufficient force to compel them.”
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled by a majority judgment of 6:1 that sub-classification within the SC/ST reservation is permissible. The court addressed whether subclassification of Scheduled Castes for reservation is constitutionally permissible, specifically examining Section 4(5) of the Punjab Act.
This section stipulated that fifty percent of vacancies in the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes in direct recruitment should be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, subject to availability. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had struck down these provisions in March 2010, relying on the decision in EV Chinnaiah.
The Supreme Court’s decision overturned the High Court judgment, allowing the subclassification to stand.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
