Why in the news?

In a 6:1 majority ruling on August 1, the Supreme Court determined that sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) categories is permissible to extend the benefits of affirmative action.
However, the seven-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, emphasized that this must be grounded on “quantifiable and demonstrable data” rather than political motivations.

Why sub-classification is necessary?

Addressing Inequality Within SCs: The Supreme Court ruling emphasizes that SCs are not a homogeneous group. Instead, there are significant disparities in socio-economic and educational status among different castes within the SC category.
- Sub-classification allows for the identification of those who are more disadvantaged and ensures that benefits are equitably distributed among them.
Equitable Distribution of Benefits: States have argued that despite existing reservations, certain castes remain grossly underrepresented compared to others.
- Sub-classification aims to create separate quotas for these underrepresented groups within the SC quota, thereby promoting fairness and equity in the distribution of affirmative action benefits.
Legal Precedent and Historical Evidence: The majority opinion of the Supreme Court referenced historical and empirical evidence indicating that specific castes within the SCs face greater oppression and discrimination.
Judicial Oversight: The ruling stipulates that any sub-classification must be based on “quantifiable and demonstrable data” regarding levels of backwardness and representation, ensuring that the process is transparent and justifiable.

Exclusion of the Creamy Layer: The creamy layer principle refers to the exclusion of the more affluent and advanced members within a backward class from receiving reservation benefits. This principle is currently applied to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) but has been suggested for implementation within SCs and STs as well.
Achieving True Equality: Justice B.R. Gavai, in his concurring opinion, emphasized the need for states to identify and exclude the creamy layer among SCs and STs to ensure that affirmative action benefits reach those who are genuinely disadvantaged.
Historical reason: The creamy layer principle has been upheld in various Supreme Court judgments (Indra Sawhney judgment in 1992), which have recognized that certain individuals within reserved categories may have advanced socio-economic status and should not benefit from reservations intended for the disadvantaged.

Data Collection and Analysis: States should prioritize the collection of comprehensive and quantifiable data on the socio-economic status of different castes within the SC and ST categories.
Policy Framework for Creamy Layer Exclusion: States should develop clear policies to identify and exclude the creamy layer within SCs and STs from reservation benefits.