'Are They Destined To Carry Their Backwardness Till Eternity?': SC Says Fruits Of Reservation Not Reaching Lowest Strata Of SC-STs [Read Judgment]

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court opined that the State Government can give the preferential treatment to a particular class more backward out of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe without depriving others of benefit. The bench, has made several observations in the judgment in favour of revisiting the dictum in E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, though it referred the matter to larger bench since EV Chinnaiah is a judgment of a five judge bench. Justice Arun Mishra, who authored the judgment for the bench, observed that there are unequals within the list of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and socially and educationally backward classes and that the fruits of reservation is not reaching the lowest strata. It observed that the State cannot be deprived of the power to take care of the qualitative and quantitative difference between different classes to take ameliorative measures. Concluding its 78 page judgment, the court observed thus:"The interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 16, 338, 341, 342, and 342A is a matter of immense public importance, and correct interpretation of binding precedents in Indra Sawhney and other decisions. Though we have full respect for the principle of stare decisis, at the same time, the Court cannot be a silent spectator and shut eyes to stark realities. The constitutional goal of social transformation cannot be achieved without taking into account changing social realities."Click here to read the background of the caseDoes Preferential Treatment Include and Excludes Castes?One of the questions considered by the bench, also comprising Justices Indira Banerjee, MR Shah, Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose, was whether subclassification made or preferential treatment within the class of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and socially and educationally backward classes can be said to be an exercise of inclusion or exclusion particularly when the other castes in the list of Scheduled Caste persons are not deprived of the benefit of reservation in totality? It observed: All the castes included in the list of Scheduled Caste are given the benefit of reservation as per representation in service, but only specific percentage fixed for preferential treatment to a caste/class which was not able to enjoy the benefit of reservation on account of their being more backward within the backward classes of Scheduled Castes. The preferential treatment would not tantamount to excluding other classes as total deprivation caused to any of the castes in the list of Scheduled Caste under Article 341(2). Caste is nothing but a class. It is the case of classification to provide benefit to all and to those deprived of the benefit of reservation, being the poorest of the poor. Whether the action based on intelligible differentia to trickle down the benefit can be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and whether subclassification can be said to be an act of inclusion or exclusion particularly when various reports indicating that there is inequality inter se various castes included within the list of Scheduled Castes. They do not constitute homogenous class have been relied upon. Based on the report and to give adequate representation to those who continue to remain the most backward of the downtrodden class, the provisions containing a certain percentage of preferential treatment subject to availability without depriving others in the list were made. The bench noted that, in Indra Sawhney, it was held that it is permissible to make sub classification within socially and educationally backward classes. That discussion would be applicable for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as they admittedly fall under Article 16, it added. How to trickle down the benefit to the bottom rung? Another question which was considered was whether subclassification for providing benefit to all castes can be said to be tinkering with the list under Articles 341, 342 and 342A, in view of the decisions in Indra Sawhney, permitting subclassifications of backward classes and in Jarnail Singh, in which, it was opined that 'creamy layer concept' for exclusion of benefit can be applied to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and it does not in any manner tinker with the Presidential list under Article 341 or 342 of the Constitution. The Court opined: "The caste or group or subgroup continued exactly as before in the list. It is only those persons within that group or subgroup, who have come out of untouchability or backwardness by virtue of belonging to the creamy layer, who are excluded from the benefit of reservation. The million dollar question is how to trickle down the benefit to the bottom rung; reports indicate that benefit is being usurped by those castes (class) who have come up and adequately represented. It is clear that caste, occupation, and poverty are interwoven. The State cannot...

'Are They Destined To Carry Their Backwardness Till Eternity?': SC Says Fruits Of Reservation Not Reaching Lowest Strata Of SC-STs [Read Judgment]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

"The million dollar question is how to trickle down the benefit to the bottom rung; reports indicate that benefit is being usurped by those castes (class) who have come up and adequately represented."

Tags