The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment on August 1, has laid down the fundamental definition of how quotas for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes work, only since the introduction of reservations in India in 1950.
This landmark judgment allows states to create sub-categories into SC and ST categories. This will enable targeted protection for the most disadvantaged communities in these groups. In delivering the judgment, a seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud overturned a 2004 court order that had treated the SC/ST list as an indivisible whole. The decision acknowledges the internal disparity between the SC and ST lists, a long overdue recognition of the varying levels of social and economic backwardness among these communities.
Article 341 of the Constitution empowers the President to appoint Scheduled Castes, who collectively are given 15% reservation in education and public employment. However, this broad categorization has often led to unequal access to these benefits, with some sub-groups significantly underrepresented. States have tried to correct this imbalance in the past, but these efforts have been hampered by judicial interpretations mandating uniform treatment for all Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The latest decision empowers States to identify and address specific needs in these communities, if they can demonstrate a legitimate need supported by empirical evidence. Chief Justice Chandrachud described the Supreme Court’s presidential list as a “legal fiction” intended to benefit historically marginalized communities, but does not imply group cohesion. The new judgment confirms that true equality requires recognizing and resolving these internal differences. The Court has set strict criteria for states to apply sub-classifications, demanding strong data and rational justifications.
While this will ensure that any changes are reality-based and subject to judicial scrutiny, another important aspect of the decision is the debate surrounding the ‘creamy layer’ principle, which limits reservations to the truly disadvantaged. While this concept is already being applied to Other Backward Classes (OBCs), efforts are underway to apply it to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This will ensure that the benefits of reservation reach those who need them most and promote a more equitable distribution of resources. The concept of the creamy layer arose out of Indra Sawhney’s historic transition in 1992. Based on the recommendations of the Mandal Commission, the V P Singh government on 13 August 1990 introduced civil posts and 27% reservation for socially and educationally backward classes (OBC reservation) in services was notified. This was challenged in the Supreme Court by Indra Sawhney and others. On 16 November 1992, a nine-judge bench headed by Justice B PJeevan Reddy upheld the OBC reservation of 27 per cent for the exclusion of the creamy layer or socially, economically and educationally advanced members of the OBCs. This was done to benefit those most in need of reservation.
The rationale for determining the creamy layer was given by an expert committee headed by retired Justice Ram Nandan Prasad, which was set up after the Indra Sawhney judgment. The committee submitted its report on 10 March 1993, based on which, on September 8, the Department of Personnel and Training listed six categories of people whose children fall under the creamy layer. Constitutional/Statutory Posts; Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ Officers of Central and State Governments, Employees of Public Undertakings and Statutory Bodies, Universities; Colonels and above equivalent in Armed Forces and Paramilitary Forces; Doctors, Lawyers, Management Consultants, Engineers etc. Professionals; property owners with agricultural land or vacant land and/or buildings; and income/wealth tax assessors.
Among the judges, Justice Gavai noted that the criteria for excluding the creamy layer from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may be different from the criteria applicable to Other Backward Classes for the purpose of affirmative action. Economic and social criteria for OBCs may allow upward mobility from backwardness but the same cannot be said for SCs and STs. Yet this historic decision is an important step towards reforming our approach to social justice. By allowing states to create sub-categories into SC and ST categories, the Supreme Court has paved the way for more nuanced and effective implementation of affirmative action.
This judgment not only corrects historical observations but also sets a precedent for future policies aimed at achieving true equality for all marginalized communities.
