The Supreme Court of India has made a significant ruling regarding the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). The court has rejected review petitions that challenged a previous judgement allowing this sub-classification, emphasising that this approach is permissible for delivering affirmative action benefits. This decision underscores a shift in the legal landscape surrounding caste-based reservations in India.
In a session led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, a seven-judge Constitution Bench dismissed the review petitions after determining that there were no apparent errors in the initial ruling.
The bench concluded that the petitions did not meet the requirements for a review under the Supreme Court Rules of 2013. This decision came after a detailed examination of the arguments presented in the review applications.
Earlier this year, on August 1, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark verdict suggesting the application of the "creamy layer" principle to the SCs and STs. This principle typically identifies the relatively better-off members within disadvantaged groups and aims to ensure that the benefits of affirmative action reach those who genuinely need them.
However, the court placed a limitation on this classification, stating that the government should not reserve all seats for one particular subclass to the detriment of others within the SC and ST categories.
This ruling overrules a previous 2004 judgement that prohibited preferential treatment for certain sub-castes within the SCs and STs. The decision was reached with a 6:1 majority, signalling a shift in the court's stance on this contentious issue.
Justice B.R. Gavai, who authored a detailed opinion supporting the new ruling, posed a thought-provoking question regarding equality within these classifications.
He argued that children of high-ranking civil servants, such as IAS and IPS officers, should not be viewed as equals to children from disadvantaged backgrounds within the SCs and STs.
Justice Gavai’s opinion received backing from other justices, who emphasised the necessity for the government to create a framework that identifies the "creamy layer" among SCs and STs.
This measure aims to exclude more privileged individuals from accessing affirmative action benefits, thereby ensuring that the most disadvantaged groups receive the necessary support.
In 2004, a five-judge Constitution Bench ruled in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh that members of reserved category groups formed a homogeneous class that could not be further categorised. However, this ruling has now been overturned, paving the way for a more nuanced approach to caste-based reservations.
The Supreme Court's decision has sparked discussions among government officials. Shortly after the ruling, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Cabinet convened to deliberate on its implications.
The Cabinet affirmed that the Constitution does not explicitly provide for the concept of a "creamy layer" within the SCs and STs reservations. Union Information and Broadcasting Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw reiterated the government's commitment to the provisions set forth in the Constitution, emphasising that the framework established by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar does not include provisions for a creamy layer in the SC and ST reservations.
The implications of this ruling are significant as it sets a precedent for how caste-based reservations are structured in India. By allowing for sub-classification within SCs and STs, the court acknowledges the diversity within these groups and the varying degrees of socio-economic disadvantage experienced by individuals.
This nuanced approach aims to make the affirmative action framework more equitable and just, ensuring that it targets those in need effectively. The ongoing discourse surrounding caste-based reservations in India highlights the complex interplay between historical injustices and contemporary social dynamics.
The Supreme Court's recent ruling reflects a willingness to adapt to these changing realities, aiming to strike a balance between preserving the spirit of affirmative action while addressing the nuances within these categories.
Follow us
