Centre opposes plea for income-based sub-quota in SC, ST, OBC reservations, tells Supreme Court reservation is rooted in social backwardness
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK New Delhi, Aug. 6: The Union Government has opposed a plea in the Supreme Court seeking the introduction…
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
New Delhi, Aug. 6: The Union Government has opposed a plea in the Supreme Court seeking the introduction of an income-based sub-quota within the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation framework, asserting that reservations for SCs, STs and OBCs are founded on historical and social backwardness and not merely on economic status.
In a counter affidavit filed through the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, the Centre contended that the petition seeks judicial directions to formulate a reservation policy, a matter that falls within the executive’s policy-making domain and cannot be enforced through a writ of mandamus.
Petition seeks income-based preference within reserved categories
The petitioners have sought directions to the Union Government to evolve a more equitable reservation policy by introducing income-based preferences within SC, ST, OBC and EWS categories. They have also sought sub-classification within these categories to ensure that economically weaker individuals receive priority in availing reservation benefits.
Opposing the plea, the Centre argued that the constitutional framework governing the identification of Scheduled Castes under Article 341, Scheduled Tribes under Article 342 and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes under Article 342A does not permit alterations based solely on economic criteria.
Reservation based on historical and social backwardness
The Centre submitted that the criteria for identifying SCs, STs and OBCs have evolved through constitutional provisions, parliamentary enactments and recommendations of commissions such as the Kalelkar Commission and the Mandal Commission.
According to the affidavit, Scheduled Castes are identified primarily on the basis of historical discrimination arising from untouchability, Scheduled Tribes on the basis of distinctive cultural identity, geographical isolation and backwardness, while OBCs are identified on the basis of social, educational and economic disadvantages coupled with inadequate representation in public services.
The government maintained that these categories are recognised on historical and social criteria such as caste, tribe and social backwardness, and not solely on economic status.
Centre: Creamy layer principle applies only to OBCs
The Union Government also argued that the “creamy layer” principle does not apply to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Relying on landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Indra Sawhney, E.V. Chinnaiah, M. Nagaraj and Ashoka Kumar Thakur, the Centre submitted that exclusion of the creamy layer has been developed only in the context of OBC reservations.
It argued that the Indra Sawhney judgment made it clear that economic advancement alone cannot determine social backwardness, while E.V. Chinnaiah held that any alteration to the Scheduled Caste list can be made only by Parliament under Article 341(2).
The affidavit further contended that M. Nagaraj did not extend the creamy layer principle to SCs and STs and that Ashoka Kumar Thakur reaffirmed that the principle is confined to OBC reservations.
Welfare schemes already use income criteria
The Centre pointed out that while reservations for SCs, STs and OBCs are not based on income, several welfare schemes for these communities already incorporate income or means tests to ensure that benefits reach the most deserving beneficiaries.
It added that any proposal to introduce income-based preferences within the reservation framework would require a comprehensive empirical study of the socio-economic conditions of beneficiaries belonging to reserved categories.
Centre seeks dismissal of petition
Describing the petition as “misconceived”, the Union Government argued that it raises no enforceable constitutional issue under Article 32 and effectively seeks judicial directions compelling the executive to frame policy in a particular manner.
The Centre urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition, contending that decisions relating to reservation policy fall within the exclusive domain of the executive and legislature rather than the judiciary.
