Reservation for the 'Capable' Excluded from Benefits! - SC
New Delhi (The Uttam Hindu): The Supreme Court, on Thursday, stated that, considering the past 75 years, individuals who have benefited from reservation and are capable of competing with others should be excluded from reservation. However, the court emphasized that the final decision on this matter should be made by the executive and the legislature.
A bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih referred to a decision made by the Supreme Court’s seven-judge bench in August of last year, while hearing a petition. In its majority judgment, the Constitution Bench had stated that states have the constitutional right to create sub-categorization within the Scheduled Castes (SC) to provide reservations for those within the group who are more socially and educationally backward. Justice Gavai, who was also part of the Constitution Bench, had written a separate opinion in which he stressed that states should formulate a policy to identify the "creamy layer" within the SC and Scheduled Tribes (ST) groups, excluding those who are capable from benefiting from reservations.
On Thursday, the petitioner’s lawyer referred to this judgment, highlighting the direction given by the Supreme Court to states to form a policy for identifying the creamy layer. Justice Gavai confirmed that the Court’s stance allowed for sub-classification. The petitioner’s lawyer further argued that although the Constitution Bench had instructed states to make a policy, nearly six months had passed without any progress. When the bench expressed reluctance to hear the petition, the lawyer requested permission to withdraw it and instead present it to the relevant authorities for action. The bench granted this request. However, when the lawyer expressed concern that the state might not create a policy and that the Supreme Court might ultimately need to intervene, the Court responded, "The legislature can make the law."
On August 1, in a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court’s seven-judge bench ruled with a 6-1 majority that states could sub-categorize within the SC and ST categories to provide reservations to those who are more disadvantaged. This decision overturned the 2004 judgment in E.V. Chinnayya v. Andhra Pradesh, in which a five-judge bench had ruled that SCs and STs were homogeneous groups, and sub-categorization was not permissible. The August 1 ruling not only endorsed the concept of "reservation within reservations" but also emphasized the necessity of identifying and excluding the creamy layer from the benefits of reservations within the SC and ST categories. While six judges agreed with the majority decision, Justice Bela M. Trivedi dissented, arguing that sub-classification of SCs and STs was contrary to constitutional principles. She pointed out that any changes to the President’s lists under Articles 341 and 342 could only be made by Parliament, not by the states.
The Supreme Court further clarified in its August 1 ruling that states could sub-classify based on "quantitative and performance-based criteria" related to backwardness and representation in government jobs, rather than arbitrary factors or political interests. The seven-judge bench, by a 6:1 majority, dismissed the 2004 decision in E.V. Chinnayya v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which had ruled that SCs could not be sub-classified due to their classification as a homogeneous group.
