A bench headed by Justice R V Raveendran issued notices to the Centre and state governments seeking their response to introduce concept of creamy layer for SC and ST reservation.
The Supreme Court today agreed to hear a PIL seeking to bring "advanced and affluent" Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes out of the purview of reservation and sought a response from the Centre and all state governments on this issue.
A bench headed by Justice R V Raveendran issued notices to the Centre and state governments seeking their response to introduce concept of creamy layer for SC and ST reservation.
The bench passed the order on a petition filed by a retired officer of Indian Legal Services seeking the court's direction to exclude advanced and affluent Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from the ambit of reservation.
O P Shukla, who himself belongs to Scheduled Caste, submitted "benefits of reservation are not percolating down to the real and genuine beneficiaries.
"Various government studies and reports found that the benefits were not percolating down to real and genuine beneficiaries. So, the purpose of reservation stands defeated," senior advocate Balaji Srinivasan, appearing for the petitioner contended.
He referred to various surveys conducted by state governments pointing out that there are affluent castes within SC and ST.
"As early as 1965, the Lokur Committee recommended exclusion of certain advanced castes/tribes. It was also pointed out by the committee that vested interests had emerged within SCs and STs as a result of concessions given to them," the petition said.
"The Centre is unjustified in not extending the principles of creamy layer to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in spite of various decisions of the apex court," it said.
The petitioner pleaded with the apex court to direct the Centre to implement Lokur Committee's recommendations.
"The governments are unjustified in not implementing the Lokur Committee's recommendations which had suggested exclusion of advance castes/tribes from the Schedule," the petitioner said.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}