Debate on subcategorization in context | Economic and Political Week

While the objectives of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling are laudable, its limitations must also be explained.

The epigraph to the report of the second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission) explains the act of Equating unequals as synonymous with perpetuationn inequality. This maxim was mentioned several times in the recent Supreme Court ruling (Civil Appeal No. 2317 of 2011, The State of Punjab and others v. Davinder Singh and others, 1 (August 2024) Decision on the constitutionality of subclassificationscation of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), and can be described as one of the guiding principles of judgmentt. The judgment, which allows a subclassification within the SCs and STs, met with mixed reactions, with many SC organisations condemning the verdict outright as divisive and a move to dilute the reservation policy. Further controversy was sparked when the verdict addressed the question of whetherQuestion of the “creamy layer”, although a decision on this was not sought. With opinions favorable to the application,on a “Cream layer” criterion is suggested in judgments of individual judges to exclude persons of the SC/ST community whoThe whole exercise has proven successful, embroiled in further disputes. In addition, while the entirethe judgement mainly deals with the question of subclassification withinn the SCsThis also applies to the STswhose disadvantage is due to completely different socio-economic structures.