Syllabus: GS2/Polity & Governance
Context
- Recently, the Supreme Court directed the Union Government to submit an affidavit along with an Action Taken Report detailing steps taken to implement its August 1, 2024 Constitution Bench judgment permitting sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs) for reservation purposes and extending the creamy layer principle to SCs and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
Background: State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024)
- Issue Before the Supreme Court: Can states sub-classify Scheduled Castes (SCs)within the Presidential List for the purpose of distributing reservation benefits more equitably?
- Can the creamy layer principle be applied to SCs and STs?
Key Rulings of the Court (6:1 Majority)
- Sub-Classification Allowed: The Court held that:
- SCs are not a homogeneous class, and empirical evidence shows inequality even within SC communities.
- States can create sub-categories within SCs to ensure equitable distribution of reservation benefits.
- It overruled the 2004 judgment in E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, which had held that SCs form a single homogeneous group and cannot be sub-classified.
- Creamy Layer Principle Extended: The majority supported applying the creamy layer principle to SCs and STs.
- Justice BR Gavai stated that excluding the creamy layer from SC/ST reservations is necessary to achieve real equality under the Constitution.
- It means socially or economically advanced members within SC/ST communities may be excluded from reservation benefits if the State frames such a policy.
- Constitutional Interpretation: The Court clarified:
- Sub-classification does not amount to tampering with the Presidential List under Article 341.
- It does not violate Article 14 (Right to Equality).
- The objective is to achieve substantive equality, not just formal equality.
- Dissenting View: Justice Bela M Trivedi dissented, holding that:
- SCs constitute a homogeneous class.
- States cannot subdivide them.
- Any such attempt would violate Article 341.
Sub-classification Within SCs For Reservation Purposes
- The Scheduled Castes (SCs) are recognized under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India.
- Sub-classification refers to the division of the broader SC category into sub-groups based on relative backwardness.
- Rationale: Why Is Sub-classification Being Demanded:
- Uneven Access to Benefits: Empirical data in some states show concentration of benefits among a few SC sub-castes.
- Substantive Equality: True equality may require prioritizing the most backward among the backward.
- Social Justice Deepening: It aligns with the constitutional vision of empowering the weakest sections.
- Concerns and Counterarguments:
- Fragmentation of Dalit Unity: Critics argue it could divide already marginalized communities.
- Administrative Complexity: Identifying relative backwardness within SCs may require periodic socio-economic surveys.
- Potential Politicization: Sub-classification could become a tool for electoral mobilization rather than social justice.
- Moreover, since the SC list is notified by the President under Article 341, questions arise about whether states have the legislative competence to create internal divisions without altering the central list.
Extending Creamy Layer Principle to SCs and STs
- Understanding the Creamy Layer Principle: The ‘creamy layer’ refers to the relatively wealthier, better-educated, and socially advanced members within a backward class who are excluded from availing reservation benefits.
- It was introduced by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).
- The Court upheld 27% reservation for OBCs but ruled that the ‘creamy layer’ among OBCs must be excluded, reasoning that reservation aims to uplift the genuinely backward sections, not perpetuate advantages within the same group.
- Currently, the creamy layer principle applies only to OBCs and does not apply to SCs and STs.
Why were SCs and STs Treated Differently?
- Reservations for SCs and STs are rooted in historical discrimination and untouchability, not merely social or educational backwardness.
- The constitutional basis lies in:
- Article 15(4): Special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes and SC/ST;
- Article 16(4): Reservation in public employment;
- Article 17: Abolition of untouchability;
- SCs and STs were considered structurally and historically oppressed communities, where social stigma is not erased by economic mobility, unlike OBCs.
Previous article
Govt Amends IT Rules, with focus on AI content
Next article
No-Confidence Motion Against Speaker of Lok Sabha
