SC Had Issued a Notice to Centre on a plea for ‘creamy layer’ Within SC, ST Reservation

General Studies Paper-2

Context

• The Supreme Court has decided to examine a petition to introduce a “system”, similar to the creamy layer concept for the Other Backward Classes (OBC) in reservation benefits among the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

Reservation in India

• As per existing instructions, reservation is provided to Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) at the rate of 15%, 7.5% and 27%, respectively, in case of direct recruitment on an all-India basis by open competition.
  • In direct recruitment on an all-India basis, other than by open competition, the percentage fixed is 16.66% for SCs, 7.5% for STs, and 25.84% for OBCs.
• The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act 2019 enables the State (i.e., both the Central and State Governments) to provide 10% reservation to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the society.

Creamy Layer Principle

• It is a concept used to ensure that reservations in educational institutions and government jobs are extended to those who are economically and socially disadvantaged within a certain group.
  • It aims to prevent the more affluent or advantaged members of a reserved category from availing themselves of these benefits.
• Origin: The concept was first articulated by the Supreme Court of India in the Indra Sawhney case (1992), also known as the Mandal Commission case.
  • The Court’s ruling emphasized that within the OBC (Other Backward Classes) category, those who are relatively more privileged should not benefit from reservations.
• Criteria: The “creamy layer” is determined based on various criteria, including income and education levels.
• Impact: By applying the creamy layer principle, the government aims to make its affirmative action policies more effective and equitable, ensuring that those who are most in need receive the support intended for them.

Supreme Court Judgement on Sub-Categorisation of Scheduled Castes (SC)

• In 2024, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of sub-classification within Scheduled Caste categories in a 6:1 majority, overruling the five-judge bench decision in E.V. Chinaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh (2004).
  • It held that the criteria for identifying the creamy layer among SCs/STs should differ from those used for the Other Backward Castes (OBCs).
• In 2004, the Supreme Court held in the E V Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh case that the SC/ST list is a ‘homogeneous group’ and cannot be further divided.
• Argument of SC in 2024 Judgement:
  • Equality under Article 14 means treating equals equally, but allows the State to classify groups that are differently placed.
    • If a reserved category (like Scheduled Castes) is not uniform inside, the State can create smaller groups within it for fair distribution of benefits.
  • Not Homogeneous: The Presidential list is a legal fiction, used to identify disadvantaged groups, not a uniform class.
    • Inclusion in the SC list does not bar further classification for targeted benefits.
  • The SC held that the Sub-classification must be based on:
    • Quantifiable data;
    • Proof of greater disadvantage;
    • Evidence of inadequate and ineffective representation in public services.
    • States must avoid arbitrary classification — must show rationale and empirical backing.
    • Effective representation, not just numerical presence, is key.

Arguments in Favour

• Unequal Backwardness Within SCs: Some castes within the SC communities are more socially and educationally backward than others and have been consistently underrepresented.
  • Treating unequals equally perpetuates inequality, defeating the purpose of the reservation.
• Not Homogeneous: The SC list under Article 341 is a legal fiction created for affirmative action.
  • Chief Justice Chandrachud stated that inclusion in the list does not mean that castes are homogeneous, and law must recognize internal differences.
• Constitutional Mandate allows it: Articles 15(4) and 16(4) empower the state to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward class.
• Promotes Effective Representation: The goal is effective representation, not mere numbers. Sub-classification can help achieve meaningful inclusion.
• Backed by Empirical Data: Allows the government to target affirmative action where it’s needed the most.

Arguments Against

• Article 341: Article 341 allows only the President to modify the SC list.
  • State-led sub-classification is seen as indirect interference with the list and beyond state powers.
• Fragmentation Within Community: Sub-quotas can lead to increased caste-based divisions among SCs.
  • It may undermine the collective political strength and social solidarity of SC communities.
• Defining Criteria: Establishing objective, empirical measures of disadvantage within SCs is challenging.
  • Risk of inaccurate classification and legal challenges.
• Opens the ‘Creamy Layer’ Debate: Introducing the ‘creamy layer’ concept for SCs could dilute the protection provided to SCs as a whole.
  • Reservation for SCs is not just about economic backwardness, but historical discrimination and stigma, which persists across income groups.

Way Ahead

• Respect Constitutional Boundaries: Ensure sub-classification stays within Articles 14, 15(4), 16(4), and does not alter the Presidential List under Article 341.
• Evaluate Creamy Layer Applicability Carefully: If applied to SC/ST, set separate criteria from OBCs, ensuring it does not dilute historical safeguards for these groups.
• Strengthen Social Uplift Measures Beyond Quotas: Complement reservations with targeted education, skill development, entrepreneurship support, and anti-discrimination enforcement to reduce long-term dependency on quotas.
• Promote Social Cohesion: Accompany policy changes with awareness drives to prevent divisions within SC communities and maintain the spirit of collective upliftment.