Supreme Court’s Ruling on Sub-Quotas for Marginalized SCs
The evolution of affirmative action has shifted from a focus on formal equality to a commitment to substantive equality. This change reflects a deeper understanding of equality that includes embracing diversity and addressing historical and social disabilities. The latest Supreme Court judgment aligns with this shift by allowing States to classify Scheduled Castes (SCs) into groups and prioritize the least advanced among them. This ruling dislodges the 2005 E.V. Chinnaiah vs. A.P. decision, which had previously struck down an Andhra Pradesh law for classifying SCs into sub-groups and restricted States from “tinkering” with the SC list under Article 341.
Recognition of Diversity Within SCs
The Supreme Court’s recent verdict, delivered by a majority of 6:1, acknowledges that SCs are not a homogeneous group. Although they share a common constitutional status under the Presidential List, their levels of advancement vary. Historical and empirical evidence shows differences in backwardness among SCs. States now have the authority to identify and support the most marginalized sections within SCs. This decision overturns the previous view that States were restricted from making adjustments to the SC list, emphasizing that a nuanced approach is necessary to address the varying needs within the SC community.
The ‘Creamy Layer’ Concept and Its Implications
The Court’s majority opinion supports the exclusion of the “creamy layer” among SCs from reservation benefits, a concept previously applied only to Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Justice B.R. Gavai, while endorsing this approach, highlights that the criteria for identifying the creamy layer among SCs should differ from those used for OBCs. The challenge of applying this concept to SCs indicates that while the principle of prioritizing the most disadvantaged is crucial, its implementation may vary. The exclusion of more advanced Dalits from reservation benefits was not directly addressed, but future considerations should focus on ensuring adequate representation for the most marginalized within the Dalit community.
Conclusion: Advancing Social Justice Through Sub-Classification
This landmark judgment reinforces the principle that affirmative action should be tailored to the needs of the most disadvantaged. By allowing sub-classification within SCs, the Supreme Court’s decision aims to ensure that the benefits of affirmative action reach those who need them most. This approach highlights the ongoing commitment to achieving substantive equality and addressing the unique challenges faced by marginalized groups.
Meaning of the word:
| Word | Meaning | Synonyms | Antonyms |
| Dislodges | “Dislodges” means to remove something or someone, especially by force, from a fixed position | Removes Displaces Ejects Shifts | Establishes Grounds Settles Implants |
| Tinkering | “Tinkering” means try to repair or improve something without having the proper skill or knowledge | Fixing Adjusting Modifying Messing | Finalizing Completing Stabilizing Settling |
| Empirical | “Empirical” refers to knowledge, information, or data that is based on observation, experience, or experimentation rather than on theory or logic alone. | Observational Experimental Practical Actual | Theoretical Hypothetical Conceptual Philosophical |
| Marginalized | “Marginalized” refers to individuals or groups that are pushed to the edges or margins of society, often excluded from mainstream social, economic, cultural, or political life. | Disadvantaged Excluded Neglected Outcast | Included Privileged Empowered Respected |
