The Supreme Court’s decision to approve sub-categorisation of SC/STs for reservations will pave the way for greater inclusivity

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has declared that sub-classification within Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is permissible. Justice Pankaj Mithal emphasised that reservations should benefit only the first generation within a category and called for periodic reviews to ensure subsequent generations have reached parity with the general category. This ruling overruled the EV Chinnaiah case, where the Court had previously held that all castes formed a single homogeneous group that could not be subdivided. This decision has significant implications for the socio-economic upliftment and political representation of these historically marginalised communities. The judgement addresses the issue of the creamy layer within a caste. It is argued that the caste quotas are often usurped by the creamy layer within a caste as some people within a caste are uplifted and have education, means and resources to prevail upon the rest of their ilk. India's Constitution, through Articles 341 and 342, recognises certain communities as marginalised. The government is permitted to make special provisions for the upliftment of these communities which have been historically deprived. These measures include reservations in educational institutions, government jobs, and legislative bodies. Over the years, concerns have been raised regarding the unequal distribution of these benefits. Some sub-castes or sub-tribes within the broader SC/ST categories have been perceived as cornering a disproportionate share of the benefits, leaving others behind. This has led to calls for sub-classification.

The petitioners had argued that such sub-classification would undermine the unity of these communities and contradict the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution.  However, the Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasised that the primary objective of reservation policies is to ensure social and economic justice. By sub-classifiying a caste, the government can design more nuanced policies that ensure benefits are equitably distributed among all sub-groups within the SC/ST categories. The decision can also lead to better political representation for sub-groups within SCs and STs. It opens the door for more inclusive policies that reflect the diverse needs and aspirations of these communities. However, the Supreme Court's decision may need additional provisions to address several gaps. The concept of the “creamy layer” or privileged group, particularly regarding the second generation, is not clearly defined and isbe open to interpretation. This lack of clear definition of “creamy layer” makes it subjective and may lead to varying interpretations which may again be challenged in the court. The Supreme Court has left it to the states to define the “creamy layer” for exclusion. It remains to be seen how this decision will be implemented and interpreted by different governments. While the Court has set the stage for a more inclusive and equitable distribution of affirmative action benefits to SC/ST, it may take time to reach the execution stage.