Reservation Policy: Centre’s Stance Before the Supreme Court
In a recent submission to the Supreme Court, the Centre has maintained that the ‘creamy layer’ criterion cannot be used to exclude affluent members of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe communities from benefits of reservation in jobs and admissions to educational institutions. The government’s stance is a significant development in the ongoing debate over reservation policies.
Discrimination Beyond Economic Considerations
According to the government, discrimination against SCs/STs and OBC/SEBC communities is not solely based on economic conditions. In its affidavit, the Centre emphasized that the system of reservation aims to provide fair opportunities, reduce economic disparities, and foster diversity in governance and academia by addressing historical marginalization. This broader concept of equality is at the heart of the reservation policy, which seeks to address the systemic inequalities faced by these communities.
The Need for Empirical Research and Legislative Action
The government has argued that any modification of reservation policy, particularly to introduce income-based preferences within reserved categories, should be preceded by a holistic review and thorough empirical study. This includes socio-economic data of reserved category beneficiaries. The Centre has maintained that such changes can only be done by Parliament, which has the authority to modify the list of SC and ST communities entitled to quota.
The Role of Parliament in Reservation Policy
The government has stressed that Parliament alone can modify the list of SC and ST communities entitled to quota. This is in line with the provisions of Articles 341(1) and 342 of the Constitution, which empower Parliament to issue notifications regarding the inclusion or exclusion of castes and tribes from the list of SCs or STs. The Centre has also pointed out that similar provisions have been made for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) through the Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) Act, 2018.
Means Test in Welfare Schemes
The government has also highlighted that in most schemes of welfare and development of SC, ST, and SEBC, excepting reservation in educational institutions and reservation in services under the state, there is a means test which ensures that benefits of schemes percolate to those who actually deserve them. This suggests that the Centre is not opposed to the idea of means testing, but rather is advocating for a more nuanced approach that takes into account the broader social and economic context of these communities.
The Supreme Court’s Verdict and its Implications
The Centre’s stance is significant in the context of the Supreme Court’s recent verdict, which permitted states to sub-categorise castes within SC communities based on socio-economic backwardness and the degree of under-representation in government jobs. The court had asked governments to devise suitable criteria to bar the ‘creamy layer’ among the SC community from availing reservation. The government’s affidavit is a response to this verdict, and its implications will be closely watched by stakeholders in the reservation policy debate.
Conclusion
The Centre’s stance on the ‘creamy layer’ criterion is a significant development in the ongoing debate over reservation policies. While the government has emphasized the need for a more nuanced approach that takes into account the broader social and economic context of these communities, it has also maintained that any modification of reservation policy should be preceded by a holistic review and thorough empirical study. The implications of this stance will be closely watched by stakeholders in the reservation policy debate.