The Supreme Court of India clarified that the executive and legislature decide if individuals benefiting from reservations should be excluded from further quota benefits. A recent ruling emphasized states’ authority to create sub-classifications within Scheduled Castes to aid the most marginalized. The court highlighted the importance of developing policies identifying the “creamy layer” for effective social justice.
New Delhi: On Thursday (Jan 9th), the Supreme Court clarified that the executive and legislature hold the authority to determine whether individuals who have already benefited from reservations and can compete without assistance should be excluded from further quota benefits.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih made this observation while addressing a plea referencing the landmark seven-judge Constitution bench judgment from August last year.
“We have given our view that taking into consideration the past 75 years, such persons who have already availed benefits and are in a position to compete with others, should be excluded from reservation. But it is a call to be taken by the executive and the legislature,”
said Justice Gavai.
The Constitution bench had, by a 6:1 majority, ruled that states have the constitutional authority to create sub-classifications within the Scheduled Castes (SCs). These sub-classifications aim to ensure that castes experiencing greater social and educational backwardness within the SC category receive equitable reservation benefits.
In his separate judgment, Justice Gavai emphasized the necessity for states to develop policies to identify the “creamy layer” within SCs and Scheduled Tribes (STs) and exclude them from reservation benefits. This recommendation came with the intent of promoting social justice by focusing on the most marginalized sections of these communities.
On Thursday, the petitioner’s counsel highlighted the court’s direction to formulate a creamy layer policy, noting that nearly six months had passed since the verdict. The bench reiterated:
“The sub-classification was permissible, but it is up to the legislators and policymakers to enact the required law.”
When the petitioner requested to withdraw the plea to make a representation before the relevant authorities, the bench granted permission, stressing the legislature’s role in framing policies.
The apex court’s ruling on August 1, 2023, overturned the 2004 EV Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh judgment. The earlier five-judge bench had prohibited sub-classification within SCs, considering them a homogeneous group. However, the seven-judge bench highlighted that such sub-classification must rely on “quantifiable and demonstrable data” of backwardness and representation in government jobs, rejecting decisions based on “political expediency.”
Justice Gavai noted that sub-classification should target the upliftment of castes that are more socially and educationally deprived among SCs.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES