In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India ruled that sub-classification within reserved category groups is permissible for the distribution of affirmative action benefits today. This decision overturns a previous 2004 judgement that had prohibited such preferential treatment within Scheduled Castes (SCs).
The 7-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, reversed the 2004 ruling made by a 5-judge Bench in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh. The earlier judgement deem that SCs and Scheduled Tribes (STs) are homogenous groups that should not be further divided or classified. It asserted that any attempt to re-classify Scheduled Castes, as listed in the Presidential Notification under Article 341 of the Constitution, would amount to reverse discrimination and violate Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law.
However, in 2020, a 5-judge Bench led by Justice Arun Mishra (now retired) recommended revisiting the 2004 ruling. The 2020 Bench observed that the benefits of reservation were not reaching the most disadvantaged within the SCs and STs, thus suggesting a need for re-evaluation of the existing framework. The current case involved an appeal by the Punjab Government challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision that had annulled the 2006 Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes Act. This Act had provided ‘first preference’ in government jobs to Balmikis and Mazbhi Sikh castes within the SC quota.
The current case involved an appeal by the Punjab government challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision that had annulled the 2006 Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act. This Act had provided ‘first preference’ in government jobs to Balmikis and Mazbhi Sikh castes within the SC quota.
This recent ruling by the Supreme Court is to impact how affirmative action benefits, potentially allowing for more targeted support to those who are most in need within reserved categories.
Prakash Ambedkar, president of the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi, criticized a recent decision on X, arguing it violates the fundamental right to equality and questioning how backwardness will be determined.
Four judges also weighed in on the concept of the “creamy layer” within Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The “creamy layer” refers to members of these groups who are financially and socially advanced and, therefore, ineligible for reservations.
Justice BR Gavai suggested that the creamy layer concept should apply to reservations for Scheduled Castes and Tribes as well, though he did not specify how it should be assessed. Two other judges agreed with this view. Justice Pankaj Mithal commented that if a generation benefits from reservations to advance in society, subsequent generations should not continue to receive reservations.
However, these comments from the judges are not binding on future cases. Currently, the creamy layer principle applies to reservations for other backward classes and is also relevant for job growth within Scheduled Castes and Tribes.
