New Delhi. Amid the ongoing legal debate over reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), the central government has clarified its position in the Supreme Court. In an affidavit filed with the court, the central government stated that the creamy layer principle does not apply to SC and ST reservations under the current constitutional and legal framework.
The government has opposed public interest litigation seeking to implement a creamy layer system within SC and ST reservations. The petitions argue that reservation benefits should more effectively reach families that are truly socially and economically disadvantaged.
What does the Centre have to say?
According to the central government, there is no provision in existing law that allows the concept of a creamy layer to be applied to SC and ST reservations. The government stated that the creamy layer concept primarily evolved in the context of reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs).
What have the petitioners demanded?
The petitions filed in this case demand a separate system for reservation benefits. The petitioners argue that if a member of an SC or ST family has already reached a constitutional position or a high-ranking government position, their children should not be required to continue receiving reservation benefits.
What did the Centre say on the changes in the SC-ST list?
In its affidavit, the central government also clarified the rights associated with the constitutional list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment stated that under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, Parliament has a significant role in the process of including or excluding any caste or tribe from the SC and ST lists. The government states that arbitrary changes to the list cannot be made at the state level based on the social status of a community. It is essential to adhere to the constitutional provisions related to the list.
Identity is not based solely on economic status.
The Centre has also cited previous judicial decisions related to reservation in its support. According to the government, SC, ST, and OBC are not identified solely on the basis of an individual’s or family’s economic status. The identification of these classes is based on broader grounds such as historical, social, and educational backwardness. The Centre has also cited the landmark decision related to the Indira Sawhney case, i.e., the Mandal Commission. The government argues that linking SC-ST reservations solely to income criteria could affect the fundamental nature of the constitutional system.
Income limit also mentioned in welfare schemes
The Centre also told the Supreme Court that many welfare schemes for SC, ST, and SEBC categories already have income-related eligibility criteria. This is intended to ensure that the benefits of government schemes reach those most in need.
The government questioned the petitioners’ proposal, saying it was not clear which schemes required changes and how much the proposed system would actually benefit people living below the poverty line.