The body of precedent pertaining to affirmative action has been continuously changing. Substantial equality is now the goal, having evolved from the idea of formal equality based on the broad concept of non-discrimination. By accepting diversity and providing accommodations for people with historical and social disabilities, reservations are no longer viewed as an exception to the equality standard but rather as a way to further the idea of equality. This trend is supported by the most recent Supreme Court ruling, which permits States to divide Scheduled Castes (SC) into groups and provide preference to the weaker and more disadvantaged members of each group.
The argument that the SCs are one homogeneous class and that subclassification would be against the equality criterion has been rejected by the Court by a majority of 6 to 1. A 2005 Constitution Bench ruling (E.V. Chinnaiah v. AP) that had declared an Andhra Pradesh statute that divided SC people into groups as unconstitutional was overturned by the verdict. After the President notifies the list of SCs under Article 341 of the Constitution, the Court decided that Parliament alone could amend the list by statute and that States could not “tinker” with the list.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court used this ruling in its decision to invalidate the SC quota’s preferential sub-quota for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs.
When the case reached the highest court, one Bench questioned the accuracy of E.V. Chinnaiah and forwarded the inquiry to a more senior Bench.
The majority decision rests on the unmistakable conclusion that SCs are not a monolithic class. Despite sharing a same constitutional standing under the Presidential List, there remain differences in the degree of backwardness among the candidates.
Untouchability is undoubtedly a shared past among them, but historical and empirical data show that their degree of development is not constant. States have the authority to designate the weaker segments of SCs and provide them with preferential treatment. According to four justices, in order to fully implement the premise that the least fortunate should benefit from affirmative action and not be pushed aside by those who are more progressed than them, the “creamy layer” among the SCs must be excluded from reservation benefits. Putting the “creamy layer” theory—which has been associated with OBCs—to use might not be simple.
The creamy layer norms cannot be the same as those that apply to the OBCs, as Justice B.R. Gavai points out in his writing supporting the exclusion of the better-o among the SCs. As of right now, the conclusions may not be legally enforceable, and the Bench did not address the exclusion of the more evolved portions of the Dalit community. Though the exclusion of the creamy layer might occur eventually, the emphasis must to be on ensuring that the marginalized Dalits receive sufficient representation.
ABHISHEK VERMA
Author: This news is edited by: Abhishek Verma, (Editor, CANON TIMES)
Authentic news.
