Centre Says Reservation Targets Historical and Social Backwardness
The Union Government has opposed a PIL before the Supreme Court seeking an Income-Based Reservation Sub-Quota within existing SC, ST and OBC reservations. The petition also seeks a merit-cum-means preference for economically weaker members of these categories.
In its counter-affidavit, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment argued that reservation aims to address historical, social and educational disadvantages. According to the Centre, income alone cannot determine the need for affirmative action.
The government said reservation helps promote social equality and representation. It also helps address structural discrimination in public services and educational institutions. Therefore, the Centre argued that financial status alone should not determine access to reserved benefits.
Centre Invokes Separation of Powers
The Centre also relied on the constitutional principle of separation of powers. It argued that the legislature and executive hold the primary responsibility for framing and changing reservation policies.
The government said courts should not create new reservation structures through judicial directions. Any change would require detailed research and an empirical assessment of the socio-economic conditions of reserved communities.
Therefore, the Centre asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the PIL. It argued that the petition does not establish a constitutional violation or infringement of fundamental rights under Part III.
Articles 341 and 342 Protect SC and ST Lists
The Centre further addressed the constitutional rules governing the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes lists.
Under Article 341, the President specifies the Scheduled Castes for each state or Union Territory. Similarly, Article 342 provides for the identification of Scheduled Tribes.
The government said executive authorities, courts and states cannot alter, divide or reclassify these lists. Instead, Parliament alone can modify them through the constitutional process.
The Centre relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh. It said the judgment confirms Parliament’s role in making changes to the SC and ST lists.
The affidavit also explained the basis for identifying different reserved groups. Historical disadvantages linked to untouchability form the basis for SC identification. Tribal identity, distinct culture and geographical isolation also play a role in identifying STs.
Meanwhile, authorities identify Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) through social, educational and economic factors.
Centre Clarifies the Creamy Layer Principle
The Centre also discussed the “creamy layer” principle and its application to different reserved categories.
The government said the Supreme Court developed the creamy layer concept for OBC reservations in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. However, it argued that the principle does not automatically apply to SC and ST reservations.
The Centre also rejected the petitioner’s reliance on M. Nagaraj v. Union of India. It said the observations on the creamy layer in that case were general in nature.
Further, the government referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008). According to the Centre, that judgment clarified the inapplicability of the creamy layer principle to SCs and STs.
At the same time, the Centre noted that many welfare and development schemes already use financial criteria. These means tests help direct benefits to economically vulnerable members of SC, ST and SEBC communities.
Thus, the government maintained that an Income-Based Reservation Sub-Quota cannot replace the broader constitutional approach to affirmative action. It urged the Supreme Court to leave major changes to reservation policy to the legislature and executive.
