For The Weakest

The Hindu     31st August 2020     Save    

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.