Reservation policy should be “organic and evolving, not static”, the Supreme Court observed Wednesday while hearing a reference on whether Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) can be sub-classified for providing affirmative action benefits. The Centre told the court it favoured this sub-classification, saying it was “key… to achieve” the “actual objective” behind reservation to those “who have had a history of discrimination for centuries” and “ensures there is a trickle-down effect”. A seven-judge Constitution bench is examining the validity of its 2004 judgment in E V Chinnaiah vs State of Andhra Pradesh, which held that SCs form a homogenous group and there cannot be any sub-division among them. Headed by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, the Bench comprises Justices B R Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma. The court’s observation, from Justice B R Gavai, came as Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphde, appearing for Tamil Nadu, sought to highlight what he contended were the errors in the 2004 judgment and said reservation policy must keep pace with “rapidly changing” social dynamics. “Anyone who reads the daily newspaper would see that there is a sea change. Reservation policy must therefore keep pace with the social dynamics,” said Naphde. Interjecting, Justice Gavai remarked, “It should be organic and evolving, not static.” “Correct. If you keep the reservation policy which was there 50 years back, it will get fossilised. It will lose its connection with the contemporary situation,” Naphde added. Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor general Tushar Mehta underlined that the Government “is committed to the declared policy of reservation for backward classes”. But, he said, “lack of sub-classification perpetuates the zone of inequality within the reserved category and stops the State from framing appropriate policy in this regard”. The SG also pointed out that “reservation benefits available are” also “limited in nature… and therefore required to be re-distributed rationally”. “In order to achieve the actual objective behind reservations, rationalisation is key (while maintaining the levels and extent of reservations) and proliferation and deepening of the reservation benefits is necessary. The sub-classification of the said benefits is a key measure which goes a long way to achieve the said objective,” Mehta said. Pointing out that the “concept of “equality” and “equal treatment” under the Constitution had evolved over the years, Mehta said “the legitimate state aim behind reservations is to support the backward classes who have had a history of discrimination for centuries”. And sub-classification, he added, furthers “the actual purpose behind reservations”. “If the aim of the State and the Constitution is to provide parity, equality of opportunity and social and economic mobility of the backward classes/castes in need, enabling of sub-classification would ensure that benefits are extended to persons more in need of the said benefits by carefully apportioning the reserved quota within the reserved class…,” he said. Mehta pointed out that the 2018 SC ruling in Jarnail Singh vs Lacchmi Narain Gupta refers to “the broader object of amelioration of backward classes” and clarifies that this cannot be achieved “if only the creamy layer within that class bag all the coveted jobs in the public sector and perpetuate themselves..”
