The Supreme Court has recently addressed the issue of identifying the creamy layer within the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). On Thursday, a significant majority of a seven-judge Constitution Bench suggested that individuals from these communities who belong to the creamy layer should be excluded from the benefits of affirmative reservation.
This recommendation came from four out of the seven judges, including Justice BR Gavai, who emphasised the necessity for the state to develop a policy to identify such individuals.
Justice BR Gavai highlighted the need for a policy that identifies the creamy layer among SCs and STs to ensure that only the genuinely disadvantaged receive the benefits of affirmative action.
He asserted that achieving real equality, as envisioned in the Constitution, requires this step. According to Justice Gavai, the criteria for excluding the creamy layer in these communities should differ from those applicable to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
This judgement was delivered by a seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, which included Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma.
The bench ruled, with a 6:1 majority, that sub-classification within SCs and STs is permissible, overruling a previous judgement in the EV Chinnaiah case. Justice Bela M Trivedi, in her dissenting opinion, disagreed with the majority's view on sub-classification.
Justice Gavai's suggestion was supported by Justices Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, and Satish Chandra Sharma. They all concurred with the necessity of excluding the creamy layer from affirmative action.
Justice Vikram Nath pointed out that the criteria for exclusion could be different from those used for OBCs, emphasising the need for periodic reviews to ensure that individuals who have advanced significantly no longer receive reservations.
Justice Pankaj Mithal echoed similar sentiments, advocating for periodic assessments to exclude individuals who have benefited significantly from reservations and are now on par with the general category.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma also stressed that identifying the creamy layer among SCs and STs should become a constitutional requirement for the state to ensure substantive equality.
Justice Gavai further illustrated the disparities in social and economic conditions, particularly in rural areas. He noted that children from SC and ST backgrounds who have accessed high-quality education and risen to prominent positions should not be equated with those from disadvantaged backgrounds still struggling with basic needs.
He highlighted the importance of ensuring that affirmative action benefits those genuinely in need, not those who have already achieved significant advancement.
Justice Gavai also acknowledged that some individuals from SC and ST backgrounds, after benefiting from reservations, have made substantial contributions to society by helping others from their communities. However, he argued that those who have reached high positions should voluntarily step aside from reservations to make room for others who still need support.
Quoting Dr. BR Ambedkar, Justice Gavai reminded us that economic interests often prevail over ethical considerations, and change usually requires substantial pressure. This statement underscores the necessity of actively identifying and excluding the creamy layer to uphold the principles of justice and equality.
The Supreme Court's ruling affirmed the constitutional validity of sub-classification within SC and ST reservations. The case at hand involved the constitutional validity of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Act, which provided a specific preference to certain subgroups within the Scheduled Castes for direct recruitment vacancies.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had previously struck down this provision, but the Supreme Court's recent ruling has now opened the door for more nuanced approaches to reservation policies.
The apex court's decision marks a significant step towards ensuring that affirmative action policies genuinely benefit those in need while preventing undue advantages for those who have already achieved considerable socio-economic progress. This approach aims to balance the objectives of social justice and equality as enshrined in the Constitution.
Follow us
