SC/ST RESERVATION : POLITY

SC/ST RESERVATION : POLITY

NEWS:

 

WHAT’S IN THE NEWS?

Supreme Court Ruling on Sub-Classification of Scheduled Castes

Key Decision:

  • Sub-Classification Allowed: The Supreme Court, in a 6:1 majority judgment, ruled that states can sub-classify Scheduled Castes (SCs) within the Presidential List to provide more preferential treatment in public employment and education.

 

Bench Composition:

  • Chief Justice: D.Y. Chandrachud led the seven-judge Constitution Bench.
  • Majority Opinion: Supported by Chief Justice Chandrachud, Justices Gavai, Nath, Mithal, Sharma, and another unnamed judge.
  • Dissenting Opinion: Justice Bela Trivedi.

 

Rationale:

  • Substantive Equality: The court emphasized that sub-classification is a constitutional requirement to achieve substantive equality if the social positions of constituents within the SCs are not comparable.
  • Indra Sawhney Case: The principle applied in the Indra Sawhney case, which allowed classification within backward classes, extends to SCs as well.

 

Creamy Layer Principle:

  • Majority View: Four judges suggested applying the creamy layer principle to SCs and STs to exclude affluent individuals from reservation benefits.
    • Justice B.R. Gavai's Opinion: Advocated for the identification of the creamy layer among SCs/STs to ensure real equality. Highlighted the disparity between children of high-ranking officials and those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
    • Justice Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, and Satish Chandra Sharma: Supported the view that excluding the creamy layer within SCs/STs is necessary for achieving true equality.

 

Implementation:

  • Policy Development: The State must develop criteria to identify and exclude the creamy layer within SCs/STs, which may differ from the criteria used for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

Legal Context:

  • Reference Cases: The judgment followed a reference made to the Bench in 2020 to examine the Tamil Nadu Arunthathiyars Reservation Act, 2009, and the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006.

 

Dissenting Opinion:

  • Justice Bela Trivedi: Argued that states do not have the power to alter the Presidential List of Scheduled Castes.

 

Conclusion:

  • Preferential Treatment Justification: The court reiterated the duty of the State to provide preferential treatment to backward classes not adequately represented, affirming the principle of treating unequals unequally to achieve real equality.

This ruling sets a precedent for the States to further refine and implement reservation policies, ensuring that the benefits of affirmative action reach the most underprivileged sections within the SC and ST communities.

 

 

ARTICLES REALTED TO RESERVATION:

 

ARTICLE 15: Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.    

 

15(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

 

15(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of R,R,C,S,PoB or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to—

 

(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or

(b) The use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.

 

15(3) special provisions for women & Children

 

15(4) special provisions for socially & Educationally backward classes or for SC & ST in public educational institutions (1st constitutional amendment)

 

15(5) special provisions for socially & Educationally backward classes or for SC & ST in private educational institutions (93rd constitutional amendment)

 

15(6) special provisions for Economically weaker sections (103rd constitutional amendment)

 

ARTICLE 16: Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment

 

16(1) Equal opportunity in employment/ appointment under the state

 

16(2) Citizens should not be discriminated on grounds of R,R,C,S,PoB, + Descent & Residence

 

16(3) Residential Qualification for employment

 

16(4) Backward class of citizens not adequately represented (BC,SC,ST)

 

16(4A) Reservation in promotion for SC,ST ( 77th constitutional amendment 1995)  (consequential seniority- 85th constitutional amendment 2001 )

 

16(4B) carry forward rule (unfilled seats will taken to next year)

 

16(5) Religious Qualification for employment / appointment

 

16(6) Reservation Economically weaker section (103rd constitutional amendment 2019)

 

CREAMY LAYER

 

Constitutional Posts: people in positions with the power to make laws, such as the president, vice president, SC and HC judges, the chairman and members of the UPSC and SPSC, the CEC and CAG, and others.

 

Officers: All India, Central, and State Services Group "A" and Group "B" / Class I and II Officers; Workers holding equivalent posts in PSUs, Banks, etc.; and Employees in private employment.

 

Top-ranked army officers: people who hold equivalent positions in the Navy, Air Force, and Paramilitary Forces and are in the rank of colonel or higher in the Army.

 

Other Professions: professionals including physicians, attorneys, engineers, creatives, writers, consultants, and so on. people who work in trade, business, or industry.

 

Agricultural land: Those who own more than a specified amount of vacant land or buildings in urban areas.

 

Annual Income: people whose monthly gross income exceeds 8 lakhs

 

 

CASE ASSOCIATED : INDRA SAWHNEY CASE (OR) MANDAL COMMISION CASE

 

Source 1 :  https://epaper.thehindu.com/ccidist-ws/th/th_delhi/issues/93387/OPS/G4AD520NS.1+GRKD535DO.1.html

 

Source 2 :  https://epaper.thehindu.com/ccidist-ws/th/th_delhi/issues/93387/OPS/G4AD520O7.1+GRKD535AE.1.html