Quota within quota

THE Supreme Court has ruled that states are constitutionally empowered to make sub-classification of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) for granting quotas within the reserved category in order to uplift more underprivileged castes. The majority verdict comes with a rider: the sub-classification has to be justified by ‘quantifiable and demonstrable data by the states, which cannot act on their whims’. The challenge for the states is to ensure that the benefits of reservation percolate down to the neediest and poorest of the poor. Justice BR Gavai, who was among the seven judges on the Bench, has put the onus on the states to identify the creamy layer in SCs and STs and take it out of the ambit of reservation.
Commendably, the court has recognised that SCs are not a homogenous class. Hence, there cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. Over the decades, the quota system has been plagued by the Animal Farm paradox — all are equal, but some are more equal than others. The creamy layer has made the most of reservation from one generation to another, even as the weakest sections have lagged socially as well as economically.
The states should initiate the ‘quota within quota’ exercise in a rational and calibrated manner on the basis of a comprehensive survey. Political and electoral considerations will come into play, and striking a fine balance will be an onerous task. Protests by groups whose prospects will be impacted by the sub-classification are a distinct possibility. Addressing the inadequacy of representation of certain sub-categories can pave the way for their much-needed uplift. With the CJI making it clear that any decision to sub-classify SCs to grant more quota benefits to a particular caste can be reviewed judicially, there is hope that states will refrain from misusing their power and instead make earnest efforts to remove intra-quota imbalances and disparities.