Levelling the field for poorest of poor with SC sub-quota

The Supreme Court's decision allows states to implement sub-quotas for Scheduled Castes based on socio-economic data, redefining affirmative action and addressing the ‘creamy layer’ debate.

Image used for representational purpose.

By allowing states to sub-categorise the Scheduled Castes for targeted reservation to uplift the most marginalised among their lot, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court took an incremental step on affirmative action. Over the years, sub-quota laws for SCs were formulated in a few states despite a five-judge bench’s bar in the Chinnaiah case in 2004, when it ruled against any subdivision of what it saw was a homogeneous stratum. But the seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud demolished the premise of homogeneity. Its 6:1 verdict said the Constitution does not even define SCs except placing them on a presidential list, adding there is a wide gulf between the socio-economic conditions of castes within that basket.

Whether the verdict would trigger tectonic forces of competing claims for SC sub-quotas, disturbing the present equilibrium, remains to be seen. To stem the possible rush for political expediency, the majority verdict said sub-classification can be done only on the basis of quantifiable data of backwardness and skewed representation in government jobs. In allowing the sub-quota, it went by a nine-judge bench’s ruling in the Indra Sawhney case that determined other backward classes were heterogeneous and deserved sub-classification.

The other important point the judges dealt with was on skimming out the ‘creamy layer’ as is being done among the OBCs. While the CJI and Justice Manoj Misra ducked it, four other judges who were with the majority verdict, justices B R Gavai, Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal and Satish Chandra Mishra, suggested a scheme to identify and eliminate the creamy layer. Justice Gavai, the lone Dalit on the bench, said the criterions for exclusion of the creamy layer from SC/STs could be different from that for the OBCs. Justice Bela Trivedi wrote the lone dissent.

The judicial push to eliminate the SC creamy layer has been on since 2006, but it has faced multiple appeals. The concept gained momentum with the latest verdict. But would the ruling party, that saw its Dalit votes shifting away in UP in the recent election, want to go anywhere near the creamy layer and be branded anti-SC? Justice Mithal went to the other extreme by ruling that reservation must be limited to the first generation or one generation in a family. That appeared to be more of a wishful thinking than a practical solution.