Rethinking Reservation and Intra Category Inequality within SC and ST Communities

3 min read

Just now

Listen

Reservation is a constitutional mechanism aimed at achieving substantive equality rather than formal equality. Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) of the Constitution of India were designed to remedy historical oppression and systemic exclusion faced by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. However, the Constitution is a living document, and constitutional policies must evolve with changing social and economic realities. The Supreme Court has consistently held that equality requires treating unequals differently, and that affirmative action must remain responsive to real and present disadvantage.

In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, the Supreme Court cautioned that reservation cannot become a permanent entitlement and must remain linked to backwardness. Justice B P Jeevan Reddy observed that affirmative action should not create a vested interest within a class that has already achieved advancement. Although Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were initially excluded from the creamy layer doctrine, later constitutional jurisprudence has increasingly acknowledged inequality within these categories. In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, the Supreme Court clearly recognised that sub classification within Scheduled Castes is constitutionally permissible in order to ensure that the most backward sections are not deprived of the benefits of reservation.

Against this constitutional and judicial background, it becomes necessary to examine whether the current framework of reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes continues to serve those who are truly disadvantaged, or whether it has begun to disproportionately benefit economically advanced sections within the same category. The following example highlights this concern.

Let me explain it with an example.

Suppose there are two candidates, Ankur and Akash. Both belong to the SC category. However, Ankur’s family income is ₹12 LPA, while Akash’s family income is only ₹3 LPA.

Because of his financial background, Ankur can devote around 12 hours a day to his studies. His family can support him fully. On the other hand, Akash can study only about 4 hours a day because he has to do part time work, help with household responsibilities, and manage other financial constraints.

Now, remember that both students belong to the SC category.

My point is that Ankur should not receive the benefit of SC reservation. This is because a sub class is being created within the same category, where economically weaker SC students are being left behind, while financially well off SC students are gaining a disproportionate advantage.

Once a family reaches a certain level of financial stability, they should not continue to take the benefit of reservation. This would ensure that poor SC candidates who actually need the support can truly benefit from it.

Today, in SC and ST reservations, it is often the financially strong candidates who get selected, not those who genuinely need affirmative action.

In this scenario, one might argue that Akash should apply under the EWS category. But the reality is that many students do not qualify for EWS because their family income is slightly above the cutoff, even though they still struggle financially. The baseline itself is set too low. While it is undeniable that caste based discrimination continues to exist and that reservation for SC and ST communities was introduced to address deep rooted historical and social injustice, the policy must evolve to reflect present day realities. Economic advancement significantly reduces the intensity of disadvantage by expanding access to education, time, and resources, even if it does not entirely eliminate social stigma.

When financially well off individuals within the SC category repeatedly avail reservation benefits, a creamy layer like sub class is created, resulting in the exclusion of economically weaker SC candidates who face both social and financial hardships. Reservation therefore risks drifting away from its core objective of substantive equality by disproportionately benefiting those who already possess relative privilege within the same category.

While concerns regarding implementation, income verification, and the continued presence of social discrimination are valid, these challenges cannot justify ignoring intra category inequality. Reservation should be need sensitive and dynamic, ensuring that benefits reach those who require affirmative action the most, rather than becoming a permanent entitlement irrespective of economic upliftment.

Thus, introducing reasonable economic thresholds within SC and ST reservations would not undermine the constitutional spirit of social justice. Rather, it would strengthen it by ensuring a fairer and more equitable distribution of opportunities, allowing truly disadvantaged candidates to compete on a more equal footing.