Needless row over Creamy layer
Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao
The Hans India (03-01-2016)
State Government decision
to implement creamy layer formula in reservations is opposed by some people
belonging to the Backward Class. The Creamy Layer is used to differentiate
socially economically developed persons in a caste from those who are deserving
of reservation and empowerment. In fact Government of
Telangana in November 2014 has merely adopted all the criteria to determine the
creamy layer among Backward Classes and the annual income ceiling limit as
fixed by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government
of India and as adapted by the Government of undivided Andhra Pradesh, as
Rs.6.00 Lakh per annum for determining the Creamy layer among the Backward
Classes. However income from the
salaries and income from the agricultural land shall not be taken into account.
To attain an egalitarian
society, there is an urgent need to remove socio-economic inequalities.
Benefits of reservation must be delivered to only those who really deserve it.
Unless the creamy layer is removed from admissions and service reservation, the
benefits would not reach the actually deserved. In one of the important cases
Supreme Court has aptly observed that reservation is given to backward classes
until they cease to be backward, and not indefinitely. It further said that,
"Society does not remain static. The industrialization and the
urbanization which necessarily followed in its wake, the advance on political,
social and economic fronts made particularly after the commencement of the
Constitution, the social reform movements of the last several decades, the
spread of education and the advantages of the special provisions including
reservations secured so far, have all undoubtedly seen at least some
individuals and families in the backward classes, however small in number,
gaining sufficient means to develop their capacities to compete with others in
every field. That is an undeniable fact. Legally, therefore, they are not
entitled to be any longer called as part of the backward classes whatever their
original birthmark. It can further hardly be argued that once a backward class,
always a backward class. That would defeat the very purpose of the special
provisions made in the Constitution for the advancement of the backward
classes, and for enabling them to come to the level of and to compete with the
forward classes, as equal citizens."
In a historical Judgement delivered on 16th
November 1990 the Supreme Court made some interesting observations on creamy
layer. It signifies imposition of an income limit,
for the purpose of excluding persons whose income is above a specified limit.
Petitioners in the case submitted that some members of the designated backward
classes are highly advanced socially as well as economically and educationally
and hence to be treated as forward. However respondents strongly opposed and argued
that 'creamy layer' is but a mere ruse, a trick, to deprive the backward
classes of the benefit of reservations. They also argued that few of the seats
and posts reserved for backward classes are snatched away by the more fortunate
among them is not to say that reservation is not necessary. Responding to theses
arguments the Judges observed that the very concept of a class denotes a number
of persons having certain common traits which distinguish them from the others.
If the connecting link is the social backwardness, it should broadly be the
same in a given class. If some of the members are far too advanced socially, economically
and also educationally the connecting thread between them and the remaining
class snaps. They would be misfits in the class.
Illustrating the point the Judges observed
that there are several practical difficulties too in imposing an income
ceiling. The line to be drawn must be a realistic one. Another question would
be, should such a line be uniform for the entire country or a given State or
should it differ from rural to urban areas and so on. Further, income from
agriculture may be difficult to assess and, therefore, in the case of
agriculturists, the line may have to be drawn with reference to the extent of
holding. The income limit must be such as to mean and signify social
advancement. At the same time, it must be recognised that there are certain
positions, the occupants of which can be treated as socially advanced without
any further enquiry. For example, if a member of a designated backward class
becomes a member of IAS or IPS or any other All India Service, his status in
society rises and hence he is no longer socially disadvantaged. His children
get full opportunity to realise their potential. They are in no way handicapped
in the race of life. His salary is also such that he is above want. It is but
logical that in such a situation, his children are not given the benefit of
reservation. For by giving them the benefit of reservation, other disadvantaged
members of that backward class may be deprived of that benefit.
Keeping in mind all these considerations, the
Court directed the Government of India to specify the basis of exclusion -
whether on the basis of income, extent of holding or otherwise - of 'creamy
layer' as early as possible. On such specification persons falling within the
net of exclusionary rule shall cease to be the members of the Other Backward
Classes. Government of India in obedience to this issued instructions in September 1993.
27% of
the vacancies in civil posts and services under the Government of India, to be
filled through direct recruitment, shall be reserved for the Other Backward Classes. Candidates belonging to OBCs recruited on the
basis of merit in an open competition on the same standards prescribed for the
general candidates shall not be adjusted against the reservation quota of 27%. The
rule of exclusion will not apply to persons working as artisans or engaged in
hereditary occupations, callings. The
OBCs for the purpose of the aforesaid reservation would comprise, in the first
phase, the castes and communities which are common to both the lists in the
report of the Mandal Commission and the State Governments’ Lists. The aforesaid reservation shall take
immediate effect.
Consequently instructions were issued saying that, while
applying the Income/Wealth Test to determine creamy layer status of any
candidate income from the salaries and income from the agricultural land shall
not be taken into account. Subsequently Government of India
have revised annual income criteria to exclude socially advanced persons
/sections (Creamy layer) from the purview of reservation for Other Backward
Classes from Rs.1.00 Lakh in 1993 to Rs.6.00 lakhs in May 2013 from time to
time.
Government
in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh, have issued orders on 4th April 2006,
to adopt all the criteria to determine the Creamy Layer among the Backward
Classes, as fixed by the Government of India, except the annual income limit,
which was fixed by the Government of India at Rs.2.5 Lakh per annum and by
erstwhile Government of A.P. as Rs.4.00 Lakh per annum with effect from 4th
April 2006 and enhanced the income criteria by raising the income limit from
Rs.4.50 Lakh to Rs.6.00 Lakh per annum on 9th December 2013.
The process has thus begun with Supreme Court
direction followed by Government of India orders and adopted by both erstwhile
AP Government and the present Telangana State Government. Then why few people make
it a controversy? End
No comments:
Post a Comment