NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Thursday said that the children of scheduled parents studying in St Stephen’s College cannot be compared to children of other SC parents studying in rural schools and, therefore, cannot claim equal rights to get 15 tip. reservation in the job and admission to the educational institution earmarked for SCs.
Justice Bhushan R Gavai, the lone Dalit judge on the seven-judge bench allowed it subcategorization of the caste in the SC community, showing courage in tackling what has been a political hot potato and asking the state to create a framework to identify and eliminate the creamy layer between SCs and STs from the benefits of reservation. He said the OBC cream layer principle does not work. applicable to SC and ST.
“That’s why I’m of the opinion that the state should make a policy to identify the cream layer even from Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes so as to exclude them from the benefit of affirmative action. In my view, this and this alone can achieve real equality as enshrined in the Constitution,” he said. CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and SC Sharma agreed with Justice Gavai.
He said that inequality between SCs and STs cannot be considered equal and asked, “Can the children of IAS/IPS or civil servants be equated with the children of disabled members of Scheduled Castes studying in panchayat/zilla parishad schools. in the village?”
He said that comparing the children of SC/ST parents, who after getting reservation have reached a high position and are not backward socially, economically and educationally, with the children of manual labor parents will defeat the constitutional mandate.
In a 281-page opinion filled with quotes from Dalit icon BR Ambedkar, Justice Gavai said that the children of SC civil servants have access to advanced education and a better social environment compared to their SC parents educated in the hinterlands. “I have no doubt that putting a child studying at St Paul’s High School and St Stephen’s College and a child studying in a small village in a backward and remote area in the same bracket would violate the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution.” said.
Advocating for the framing of cream layer exclusion criteria suitable for SCs and STs, different from that applicable to OBCs, he said that since the Constitution recognizes SCs and STs as the most backward among the backward classes, the criteria should be different from the existing ones.
“If a person from this category, with the benefit of reservation, gets the position of a peon or perhaps a sweeper, he will continue to be a socially, economically and educationally backward class. At the same time, a person from this category, who after having availed the benefits of reservation have reached the high echelons in life can not be considered as social, economic and educational backward to continue availing the benefits of affirmative action, they have reached their own stage must come out of special provisions and give way to the deserving and poor ,” said Judge Gavai.
Justice Mithal agreed with Justice Gavai but took the cream layer exclusion policy to a different level. He said, “Reservation, if any, should be limited only to the first generation or one generation and if there is a generation in the family that has taken advantage of reservation and has attained a higher status, the benefits of reservation will not be available to the second generation.” Contrary to the opinion of Justice Gavai, the single opinion of Justice Mithal will not have any impact.
One judge is different from the other six, saying SCs are homogeneousgroup
Justice Bela M Trivedi opined that castes classified as Scheduled Castes are a homogenous group and cannot be classified according to the degree of backwardness, an opinion in line with the Supreme Court’s 2004 judgment by a five-judge bench which was overturned on Thursday by a seven-judge bench by a six to one majority.
Justice Trivedi overruled the dynamic interpretation given to the constitutional provision on affirmative action by the state for SCs and STs by six other judges – CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and SC Sharma – and took it strictly and literally . interpretation to contradict the majority opinion which favors subcategorization of SCs and makes cream layer exclusion criteria suitable for SCs and STs.
“When giving a broad and generous construction to a constitutional provision, the rule of ‘plain meaning’, or ‘literal’ interpretation, which is the ‘primary rule’, must be kept in mind,” he said.
Identifying the 2004 judgment in the EV Chinnaiah case as the correct law, Justice Trivedi said, “It is only the Parliament under the law that can include or exclude from the list of ‘Scheduled Castes’ specified in the notification notified under Clause (1), any caste. , race or tribe or part of or group in any caste, race or tribe such notification under Clause (1) cannot be varied even by the President by publishing any subsequent notification.
“The etymological and evolutionary history and background of SC nomenclature, coupled with the presidential order issued under Article 341 of the Constitution, make SC a homogenous class, which cannot be overlooked by the state.”
He further said, “The State has no legislative authority to enact laws to provide reservation or to give special treatment to certain castes/castes by dividing/sub-dividing/sub-classifying or grouping the castes, races or tribes mentioned as SC in. notification under Article 341.” He added that this cannot be done by taking affirmative action for the weakest sections of the society.
For example, the practical aspect considered by Justice Gavai to highlight how some castes, due to the socio-economic uplift through high-ranking projects, have cornered the lion’s share of the quota meant for SC and against the fair distribution of reservation benefits.
Judge Gavai said, “I find that the attitude of the category in the President’s List against the sub-classification is that people in the general compartment of the train. However, once they have entered the room, they will try to prevent people outside the room from entering.”
Justice Bhushan R Gavai, the lone Dalit judge on the seven-judge bench allowed it subcategorization of the caste in the SC community, showing courage in tackling what has been a political hot potato and asking the state to create a framework to identify and eliminate the creamy layer between SCs and STs from the benefits of reservation. He said the OBC cream layer principle does not work. applicable to SC and ST.
“That’s why I’m of the opinion that the state should make a policy to identify the cream layer even from Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes so as to exclude them from the benefit of affirmative action. In my view, this and this alone can achieve real equality as enshrined in the Constitution,” he said. CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and SC Sharma agreed with Justice Gavai.
He said that inequality between SCs and STs cannot be considered equal and asked, “Can the children of IAS/IPS or civil servants be equated with the children of disabled members of Scheduled Castes studying in panchayat/zilla parishad schools. in the village?”
He said that comparing the children of SC/ST parents, who after getting reservation have reached a high position and are not backward socially, economically and educationally, with the children of manual labor parents will defeat the constitutional mandate.
In a 281-page opinion filled with quotes from Dalit icon BR Ambedkar, Justice Gavai said that the children of SC civil servants have access to advanced education and a better social environment compared to their SC parents educated in the hinterlands. “I have no doubt that putting a child studying at St Paul’s High School and St Stephen’s College and a child studying in a small village in a backward and remote area in the same bracket would violate the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution.” said.
Advocating for the framing of cream layer exclusion criteria suitable for SCs and STs, different from that applicable to OBCs, he said that since the Constitution recognizes SCs and STs as the most backward among the backward classes, the criteria should be different from the existing ones.
“If a person from this category, with the benefit of reservation, gets the position of a peon or perhaps a sweeper, he will continue to be a socially, economically and educationally backward class. At the same time, a person from this category, who after having availed the benefits of reservation have reached the high echelons in life can not be considered as social, economic and educational backward to continue availing the benefits of affirmative action, they have reached their own stage must come out of special provisions and give way to the deserving and poor ,” said Judge Gavai.
Justice Mithal agreed with Justice Gavai but took the cream layer exclusion policy to a different level. He said, “Reservation, if any, should be limited only to the first generation or one generation and if there is a generation in the family that has taken advantage of reservation and has attained a higher status, the benefits of reservation will not be available to the second generation.” Contrary to the opinion of Justice Gavai, the single opinion of Justice Mithal will not have any impact.
One judge is different from the other six, saying SCs are homogeneousgroup
Justice Bela M Trivedi opined that castes classified as Scheduled Castes are a homogenous group and cannot be classified according to the degree of backwardness, an opinion in line with the Supreme Court’s 2004 judgment by a five-judge bench which was overturned on Thursday by a seven-judge bench by a six to one majority.
Justice Trivedi overruled the dynamic interpretation given to the constitutional provision on affirmative action by the state for SCs and STs by six other judges – CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and SC Sharma – and took it strictly and literally . interpretation to contradict the majority opinion which favors subcategorization of SCs and makes cream layer exclusion criteria suitable for SCs and STs.
“When giving a broad and generous construction to a constitutional provision, the rule of ‘plain meaning’, or ‘literal’ interpretation, which is the ‘primary rule’, must be kept in mind,” he said.
Identifying the 2004 judgment in the EV Chinnaiah case as the correct law, Justice Trivedi said, “It is only the Parliament under the law that can include or exclude from the list of ‘Scheduled Castes’ specified in the notification notified under Clause (1), any caste. , race or tribe or part of or group in any caste, race or tribe such notification under Clause (1) cannot be varied even by the President by publishing any subsequent notification.
“The etymological and evolutionary history and background of SC nomenclature, coupled with the presidential order issued under Article 341 of the Constitution, make SC a homogenous class, which cannot be overlooked by the state.”
He further said, “The State has no legislative authority to enact laws to provide reservation or to give special treatment to certain castes/castes by dividing/sub-dividing/sub-classifying or grouping the castes, races or tribes mentioned as SC in. notification under Article 341.” He added that this cannot be done by taking affirmative action for the weakest sections of the society.
For example, the practical aspect considered by Justice Gavai to highlight how some castes, due to the socio-economic uplift through high-ranking projects, have cornered the lion’s share of the quota meant for SC and against the fair distribution of reservation benefits.
Judge Gavai said, “I find that the attitude of the category in the President’s List against the sub-classification is that people in the general compartment of the train. However, once they have entered the room, they will try to prevent people outside the room from entering.”
