Home  /  Daily Current Affairs  /  26-08-2021 / Economic Criterion not sole Basis for Creamy Layer: SC

Economic Criterion not sole Basis for Creamy Layer: SC

Posted on August 26, 2021 by admin1  29

In News

  • The Supreme Court quashed a notification issued by the State of Haryana specifying the criteria for exclusion of ”creamy layer ” within the backward classes.

What was the controversial notification?

  • Powers under Section 5(2) of the Haryana Backward Classes (Reservation in Services and Admission in Educational Institutions) Act, 2016 were used to issue a notification.
  • According to the notification, children of those with gross annual income of up to Rs 3 lakh shall be the first to get the benefit of reservation.
    • They will avail reservation on priority in both services and admission in educational institutions.
  • The remaining quota shall go to those from the backward classes who earn more than Rs 3 lakh but up to Rs 6 lakh per annum.
  • The sections of backward classes earning above Rs 6 lakh per annum were to be considered as creamy layer.

Argument of State Government

  • Benefit to Needy
    • The sub-classification amongst the backward classes is to ensure that people with lower income amongst backward classes get the benefit of reservation.
    • They need a helping hand more than the others in the higher income bracket.

What was the Supreme Court’s Stand?

  • Violation of Indra Swahney-I verdict
    • As per the SC, the notification violated both
      • directions issued by this court in Indra Sawhney-I 
      • the memorandum dated 08.09.1993 issued by the Union of India pursuant to the judgment of Indra Sawhney-I
  • Solely based on Economic Criterion
    • Section 5(2) of the 2016 Act mandates consideration of social, economic and other factors that have to be taken into account for deciding creamy layer.
    • By the notification dated 17.08.2016, the identification of creamy layer amongst backward classes was restricted only to the basis of economic criterion.

Indra Sawhney & Others vs Union of India, 1992 (Indra Sawhney Case -I)

  • The Indira Sawhney case is also known as the Mandal Commission case.
  • Key Judgements:
    • The Supreme Court upheld the 27% quota for backward classes
    • It struck down the government notification reserving 10% government jobs for economically backward classes among the higher castes.
    • SC in the same case also capped the combined reservation beneficiaries not to exceed 50% of India’s population.
    • Reservation for backward classes should be confined to initial appointments only and not extend to promotions.
    • State governments were called upon to identify creamy layer amongst the backward classes and exclude them from the purview of reservation.
    • It also held that “the basis of exclusion of creamy layer cannot be merely economic”.

Indra Sawhney Case -II

  • Genesis
    • Implementation of the Indra Sawhney-I judgment by identification of creamy layer was not done promptly by certain states.
    • In the case of Kerala, a high-level committee was directed to be constituted by the court for identifying the creamy layer.
  • The report of the High level Committee was examined and accepted by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney Case II.
  • Subsequently, it held that the exclusion of the below-mentioned categories as beneficiary of reservation is a ‘judicial declaration’ made in Indra Sawhney-I.
    • Persons from backward classes who occupied posts in higher services like IAS, IPS and All India Services.
    • People with sufficient income who are in a position to provide employment to others.
    • Persons from backward classes who had higher agricultural holdings or were receiving income from properties, beyond a prescribed limit.

Conclusion and Way Forward

  • Quashing the Haryana notification, the court gave liberty to the state government to issue a fresh notification within a period of 3 months. 
  • It is time for the Supreme Court to relook into the Indra Sawhney Case and its utility in a changed scenario because.
    • There is a demand by different states like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra to remove the upper cap.
    • The 103rd Constitutional Amendment has already introduced the EWS quota of 10% which was prohibited in the Indra Sawhney Case.
    • Overall cap of 50% is also breached by the EWS quota.
  • A ‘Caste Census’ and making caste related data public may help in rationalising inclusion and exclusion in the reserved categories.

Source: IE

 
Previous article S­400 Air Defence Deal
Next article Facts in News