Why in the News?

A seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has ruled that States can subdivide Scheduled Castes (SC) into groups to allocate sub-quotas within the Dalit reservation.

Will the Weaker Among Dalits Get Representation from Further Sub-Classification?

• The Supreme Court’s ruling allows states to create sub-classifications within the SC category, which is expected to enable states to earmark sub-quotas for the most marginalized sections of Dalits.
• This decision aims to ensure better representation for weaker groups within the SC community who have historically been underrepresented and have not benefitted adequately from existing reservations.
• The ruling emphasizes that treating SC communities as a homogeneous group undermines the objective of reservations, as there are significant differences in advancement and discrimination among various SC communities.

Why Did the Supreme Court Overrule a Five-Judge Decision of 2004?

• The 2004 judgment in E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh held that SCs constitute a single homogeneous class and that any sub-classification was unconstitutional, as it violated Article 341, which empowers the President to notify the list of SCs.
• The recent seven-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, found this ruling to be incorrect, stating that SC communities are not homogeneous and that there are inter se differences among them.
• The majority opinion argued that the act of notifying a list of SCs does not create a uniform class, and sub-classification is permissible based on “intelligible differentia” and should have a rational nexus to the purpose of doing it.

What are the views on Creamy layer exclusion?

• The concept of the creamy layer, which excludes more advanced members of a community from benefiting from affirmative action, is currently applicable only to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and has not been extended to Dalit communities.
• Justice B.R. Gavai, in a separate opinion, emphasized the need to identify and exclude the more advanced among SCs from affirmative action benefits, arguing that treating all members equally disregards the principle of equality.
• The opinions regarding creamy layer exclusion do not constitute a directive for the government to implement this concept for SCs, as the issue was not directly addressed in the current case.

Do the Judges’ Opinions on this Constitute a Direction to the Government?

• The judges’ opinions on sub-classification and creamy layer exclusion provide a legal framework for states to follow but do not serve as a direct mandate for the government to implement changes.
• The ruling establishes that states have the authority to sub-classify SCs for the purpose of extending reservation benefits, but the specific implementation details and parameters for creamy layer exclusion remain open for further consideration and do not compel immediate action from the government.

Way forward: 

• Implementation Framework for Sub-Classification: The government should establish a comprehensive framework that outlines the criteria and process for sub-classification of SCs.
• Addressing Creamy Layer Exclusion: The government should consider developing specific criteria for identifying the “creamy layer” within SCs, similar to the criteria used for OBCs.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now