Centre refuses to change caste-based reservation rules, cites historical, social, and economic backwardness

The Union Government's firm opposition to an income-based sub-quota within India's reservation system underscores a fundamental philosophical and constitutional stance on affirmative action. The Centre's counter-affidavit, filed through the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, argues that the petition is "misconceived" and attempts to direct executive policy through judicial means, which it deems inappropriate. This position highlights the government's commitment to the established criteria for reservations, which have evolved over decades through various commissions and parliamentary enactments.

Ramashankar Prajapati

The petition filed by Ramashankar Prajapati sought to introduce an income-based sub-quota across all reserved categories, including Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). This proposal aimed to prioritize economically weaker individuals within these groups, suggesting a shift towards a more nuanced economic consideration within the broader reservation framework. However, the Centre's rejection of this plea indicates a reluctance to dilute the historical and social underpinnings of the reservation policy with purely economic metrics, especially for SC and ST categories.

The government's argument is that the criteria for inclusion in these lists are based on deep-seated historical, social, and educational backwardness, which cannot be simply overridden by economic status. While acknowledging that existing welfare schemes utilize 'means tests' for benefits outside of reservations, the Centre maintains that integrating income-based criteria into the reservation structure itself would necessitate extensive empirical research and comprehensive socio-economic data, a task it deems within the executive's purview, not the judiciary's.

Article 32

The Centre's counter-affidavit explicitly states that no enforceable constitutional issue arises under Article 32 of the Constitution, which allows individuals to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. By asserting this, the government aims to dismiss the petition on procedural grounds, arguing that the plea effectively seeks executive policy direction rather than the redressal of a constitutional violation. This legal strategy emphasizes the separation of powers, contending that policy-making, especially concerning complex social engineering like reservations, is the domain of the Parliament and the executive, not the courts.

The government further referenced specific constitutional provisions, Article 341 for Scheduled Castes, Article 342 for Scheduled Tribes, and Article 342A for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, to reinforce its argument. It stressed that only Parliament has the authority to amend the lists notified by the President under these articles. This stance reinforces the idea that the identification and classification of these groups are based on historical and social criteria, not solely economic status, and any alteration requires legislative action rather than judicial mandate.

Indra Sawhney

The Centre's affidavit also clarified the application of the 'creamy layer' principle, citing several landmark Supreme Court rulings, including Indra Sawhney. The government reiterated that this principle, which excludes economically advanced members from reservation benefits, applies exclusively to OBC reservations and does not extend to Scheduled Castes or Tribes. This distinction is crucial, as the Centre argues that applying the 'creamy layer' to SCs and STs would undermine the very concept of social backwardness and historical disadvantage that these reservations aim to address.

By referencing the Indra Sawhney judgment and others like Chinnaiah, Nagaraj, and Ashoka Kumar Thakur, the government grounds its position in established legal precedents. It asserts that excluding economically advanced members from SC/ST lists would contradict the constitutional framework and the historical rationale behind these categories. The Centre's consistent position is that the identification of SCs, STs, and OBCs is fundamentally based on historical and social criteria like caste, tribe, and social backwardness, rather than being solely determined by economic status, a principle upheld through various parliamentary enactments and judicial interpretations over the decades.