For The Weakest

Context: The Supreme Court has given cogent reasons for a reconsideration of the verdict given by a five-judge Bench in E.V. Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh  (2004) that State legislatures have no power to create sub-classifications among the list of Scheduled Castes (SC)notified by the President

The rationale for the judgement

• Preferential treatment: SC cannot be treated as a homogeneous group thus providing preferential treatment to the weakest among the SCs is necessary 

• Subclassification does not amount to tinkering with the presidential list:

• Article 342A have similar provision with respect to backward classes wherein President notifies the list of Backward classes in consultation with states.
• Article 341 and 342 empowers parliament to alter the presidential list of SC and Schedule Tribes (STs) respectively.

• Similar Classification used in Backward Classes (BC): The BC list can be divided into ‘backward’ and ‘more backward’, the same could be done among SCs too.

• Relief to States:  States can fulfil their obligation to the castes within the SC communities that have made the least progress. 

•  Punjab, which wanted to give preference to Balmikies and Mazhabi Sikhs among seats reserved for SC candidates, but the measure was struck down by the High Court, citing E.V. Chinnaiah case
• Tamil Nadu has also carved out 3% compartment for Arundhatiyars within the 18% SC.

Conclusion: There is an ongoing debate about applying creamy layer concept to SC/St candidates as well, but currently we should be more about ensuring adequate representation to the most marginalized among Dalits.