SC verdict puts spotlight on affirmative action policies

We ensure that affirmative action policies are more accurately targeted at those who are genuinely disadvantaged, rather than benefiting those who have already attained relative socio-economic comfort. This focus on excluding the creamy layer enhances the effectiveness of these policies, ensuring that resources and opportunities are allocated to the most marginalized. As India advances, adhering to this approach will be vital for fostering a genuinely inclusive society that aligns with Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar’s vision of social justice

The Legal Battle: E V Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh: The Andhra Pradesh legislation faced immediate challenges, notably from activists E V Chinnaiah and others, who argued that once enumerated in the Presidential List under Article 341 of the Constitution, SCs constituted a homogeneous class that could not be further subdivided. They claimed that the state legislature lacked the authority to alter this classification, which would amount to “tinkering” with the Presidential List. The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the state’s right to sub-classify, but the 5 Judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, in a landmark 2004 verdict, struck down the legislation. The Court held that state governments did not have the power to create sub-categories within SCs for reservation purposes. This decision had a domino effect, impacting similar sub-classification efforts in other states.

Impact on Punjab and Haryana

Following the Supreme Court’s verdict in E.V. Chinnaiah, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on July 25, 2006, in Dr. Kishanpal vs. the State of Punjab, struck down the 1975 notification issued by the Punjab government, which had been in force for 31 years. This decision invalidated the first preference in reservations for the Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh communities.

In response, the Punjab government enacted the Punjab Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006, reintroducing preferential reservations for these communities. However, this Act was challenged by Devender Singh, a member of a non-Balmiki, non Mazhabi Sikh SC community. On March 29, 2010, the Punjab and Haryana High Court struck down the 2006 Act, leading to an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Revisiting contentious sub-classification

The debate over sub-classification was reignited in 2020 when the Supreme Court referred the matter to a larger bench. The Court recognized that the constitutional provisions for SCs, STs, and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) were similar, and since sub-classification was allowed for SEBCs after the Indra Sawhney Judgment in the aftermath of the Mandal Commission report, it should logically extend to SCs and STs.

On August 1, 2024, the seven-judge bench, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud upheld the validity of sub-classification within SC/ST categories in a 6:1 majority decision. The Court’s majority opinion made several critical observations that shed light on the nuanced understanding of sub-classification within the framework of constitutional provisions.

The Supreme Court’s verdict marks a paradigm shift in India’s reservation policy. This decision is expected to influence future policies and legislative actions across states, prompting a more granular approach to social justice. However, the implementation of sub-classification will require meticulous planning, robust data collection, and continuous monitoring to ensure that it achieves its intended outcomes without exacerbating existing divisions. The state’s role will be crucial in balancing the objectives of social equity and administrative efficiency.

Addressing the Creamy Layer in SC/ ST Reservations: A Path to True Equality In his observation, Justice BR Gavai has called for the identification and exclusion of the creamy layer within the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) from the purview of affirmative action benefits. His statements bring to light a critical issue in India’s social justice framework: the monopolization of reservation benefits by a small, privileged segment within these historically marginalized communities, which consequently deprives most of the intended support.

Justice Gavai emphasized the urgent need for the state to develop a comprehensive policy to identify and remove the creamy layer from the SC/ ST categories. He pointed out the inherent inequity in allowing those who have already benefited from affirmative action to continue enjoying these privileges, thereby blocking opportunities for those who remain underrepresented and disadvantaged. “When a person gets into a compartment, he tries all means to stop others from getting into that compartment. Only on account of social justice they have got the benefit, but when the state decides to give that benefit to the ones who are not adequately represented, then the same cannot be denied,” he asserted.

This analogy vividly illustrates the exclusionary practices that can arise when members of the creamy layer continue to avail themselves of reservation benefits. It highlights the need to reassess and refine the reservation system to ensure it serves its original purpose i.e. uplifting those who are truly disadvantaged.

Justice Gavai’s call for action is not without precedent. He invoked a speech by Dr B R Ambedkar in 1949, where Ambedkar argued that political democracy cannot endure unless it is underpinned by social democracy. This historical reference underscores the enduring relevance of Dr Ambedkar’s vision and the necessity of adapting it to address contemporary challenges. The 3 other Judges of the 7 Judges bench viz. b Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice SC Sharma, and Justice Vikram Nath expressed similar views advocating the creamy layer concept.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s endorsement of sub-classification within SC and ST categories is a crucial advancement toward true equality. However, the 4 Judges’ emphasis on excluding the creamy layer is particularly significant. By implementing this methodology, we ensure that affirmative action policies are more accurately targeted at those who are genuinely disadvantaged, rather than benefiting those who have already attained relative socio-economic comfort.

This focus on excluding the creamy layer enhances the effectiveness of these policies, ensuring that resources and opportunities are allocated to the most marginalized. As India advances, adhering to this approach will be vital for fostering a genuinely inclusive society that aligns with Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar’s vision of social justice.

(Writer is ADGP (Retd.), Maharashtra, and President, Jai Bharat National Party)