Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment Virendra Kumar
| Photo Credit: ANI
Amid widespread opposition to “creamy layer” observations in the Supreme Court’s judgment on sub-categorisation of Scheduled Castes, the Centre remains guarded on the core issue of the ruling viz. the power to sub-classify the SC quota and whether it intends to wield it.
Union Social Justice Minister Virendra Kumar on Monday (August 12) dodged repeated questions about the Centre’s position on this now that the top court had permitted sub-classification. Instead, Dr. Kumar insisted the government had taken a strong position against introducing any “creamy layer” for SCs and STs.
Also Read:Why has the Supreme Court upheld States’ right to sub-categorise SCs for quota benefits? | Explained
When pressed for the Centre’s position on the now-sanctioned power to sub-classify SCs, the Minister said: “This part about the creamy layer is what has been decided.”
The Centre’s silence on sub-classification of the SC quota post the judgment stands in contrast to the strong position it had taken while arguing the case before the Supreme Court in February this year. At the time, it argued that both the Centre and States should be allowed to sub-classify SCs/STs to “further the ideals of social justice”.
About two weeks after the judgment was delivered on August 1, the Centre has now arrived at an understanding that it “clearly” applies to State governments, according to sources aware of deliberations. The order allows States to sub-classify and has laid out the conditions under which they may exercise this power, one of them explained.
While the Constitution Bench ultimately ruled in a 6:1 majority that State governments are permitted to sub-classify within the SC list, its judgment first laid down that sub-classification within the list is a permissible exercise and that this was different from including or excluding communities in the list.
Meanwhile, a high-level government panel formed ahead of the Lok Sabha polls this year to engage with communities demanding sub-categorisation has not met since the new government was formed on June 9, The Hindu has learned.
The last meeting of this committee was held before the general elections were announced, during which representatives of the Madiga community (one of the many demanding SC sub-categorisation) in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana met with government officials and pleaded their case.
This committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary was constituted in January this year, weeks after Prime Minister Narendra Modi had promised to examine issues faced by the Madiga community in availing benefits during an election rally in Telangana.
But even as the “creamy layer” observations of judges dominates the political rhetoric on the judgment, the central leaderships of neither the ruling party – BJP – nor the principal Opposition – Congress – have come out with a detailed position on the core issue of sub-categorisation among SCs and STs post the judgment.
While anger against the suggestion of a “creamy layer” among SCs/STs was nearly unanimous among Dalit voices across the political spectrum in the country, the issue of introducing sub-quotas in SC reservations continues to create a sharp divide within these communities, with most seeking clarity on the Union government’s intent.
In its August 1 verdict, the Supreme Court recognised that SCs are a “socially heterogenous class” and hence permitted sub-classification amongst them based on inadequacy of representation of certain castes or communities, provided this lack of representation is a result of their relative backwardness.
The silence of the Union government on whether it intends to sub-classify the SC quota mirrors its guarded position on sub-categorisation among Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The government had constituted a Commission of Inquiry under Justice G. Rohini (Retd.) in 2017 to examine the need for sub-quotas for OBCs.
More than a year after this commission submitted its report to the President, government sources have said the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has not yet been asked for any inputs on it.
