BENGALURU: With the Union government deciding not to consider implementing the creamy layer as ordered by the Supreme Court, to keep the economically strong SC/STs away from the benefits of the quota, communities in Karnataka, especially those hailing from Scheduled Castes, are relieved. In its recent judgment, the Supreme Court said the state governments have the powers to sub-classify the SC quota and it was welcomed by a section of SC communities.
Former BJP minister and Chitradurga MP Govind Karjol, who was part of a delegation of SC/ST MPs that petitioned Prime Minister Narendra Modi, said the latter promised them that the Centre will not implement the creamy layer in the quota.
“We discussed it with the PM, as implementing the creamy layer will mete out injustice to SC/STs who get the quota on the basis of their social stigma and Modi responded positively,” he said in New Delhi.
“If the creamy layer is implemented, it would have deprived the benefits to children of communities whose parents’ income is above Rs 8 lakh per annum. Citing lack of beneficiaries in certain schemes, the governments would have diverted the benefits to other categories,” said Dalit Sangharsha Samithi (DSS) leader C Bhanuprakash.
In Karnataka, SCs were divided over the classification of quota, following the Justice AJ Sadashiva Commission report. Bhovis and Lambanis had protested against the implementation of the report, saying it was unscientific. But the forum that fought for internal reservation for SCs for over three decades urged the state government to implement it, citing data the commission had collected after conducting a door-to-door survey, said forum’s convenor BK Keshavamurthy at a joint press conference, here on Saturday.
The commission had recommended a classification of 15 per cent SC quota by giving 6% to SC (left), 5% to SC (right), 3% to Bhovi, Lambanis, Koracha and Koramas and 1% to other 101 castes. “But the previous BJP government, led by then CM Basavaraj Bommai, increased the quota for SCs to 17 per cent proportionate to their population. Then, the classification should be 6%, 5.5%, 4.5% and 1% respectively for the communities,” said S Mareppa, an advocate.