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

The Union Government has opposed a petition before the Supreme Court. The case is Ramashankar Prajapati vs Union of India. It concerns proposed changes to India's reservation policy.

The petitioner sought an income-based sub-quota within the reserved categories. This would apply across SC, ST, OBC and EWS groups. The petitioner sought sub-classifications favouring economically-weaker persons within the categories, LiveLaw reported.

The Centre filed a counter-affidavit firmly opposing these directions. It came through the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment.

The Centre called the petition "misconceived" in its filing. No enforceable constitutional issue arises under Article 32, it argued. The plea effectively seeks executive policy direction through courts, it said.

The government urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition. It also requested that costs be imposed on the petitioners.

The government has argued that reservations stem from historical and social backwardness. According to the Centre, this differs fundamentally from mere economic status.

The Centre contended that the petition effectively demanded new policy-making. This falls squarely within the executive's domain, it argued. Courts cannot mandate such a policy through writ directions, it said.

It referenced constitutional provisions governing these categories specifically. Article 341 covers the Scheduled Castes, while Article 342 covers the Tribes. Article 342A governs socially- and educationally-backward classes separately.

The Narendra Modi government said such lists could not be altered economically. Inclusion depends instead on historical, social, and educational backwardness. Only Parliament can amend lists notified by the President.

“The criteria for inclusion in the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, and Socially and Educationally Backward Class lists are based on historical, social, and economic backwardness. Scheduled Castes face historical disadvantage from untouchability, while Scheduled Tribes exhibit distinct cultures, geographical isolation, and backwardness. Socially and Educationally Backward Classes are identified by social, educational, and economic disadvantages, along with a lack of representation in services,” LiveLaw quoted the affidavit as telling the apex court.

“These criteria are not spelt out in the Constitution but have become well established. Thus, the identification of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs)/Other Backward Classes (OBCs) is based on historical and social criteria like caste, tribe, and social backwardness, not solely on economic status,” the affidavit added.

The Centre traced this criterion through various historical developments. These include the Kalelkar and Mandal Commissions specifically. Parliamentary enactments have further shaped these classifications over decades.

‘Creamy layer’

On the "creamy layer" principle, the Centre offered clarification. It cited Indra Sawhney, Chinnaiah, Nagaraj and Ashoka Kumar Thakur rulings. This principle applies only to OBC reservations, it argued.

It does not extend to Scheduled Castes or Tribes. Excluding economically-advanced members would undermine social backwardness concepts, it said.

The Centre also referred to EV Chinnaiah on the SC list changes. Only Parliament can amend this list under Article 341(2). Judicial or executive action cannot achieve such exclusions, it argued.

Separately, the government noted that existing welfare schemes already used ‘means tests’. These operate outside the reservation in education and employment.

However, introducing income-based reservation would require extensive empirical research. This would need comprehensive socio-economic data on current beneficiaries, it said.