The Supreme Court on Friday made sharp observations regarding the continued demands for benefits of reservations by families that have economically and educationally advanced within backward classes, and questioned whether they should receive the perks of the quota.
The observations were made by a two-judge bench which included Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, while hearing a plea on reservation benefits for the creamy layer among the backward classes.
The top court observed that such advancements lead in social mobility. "If both parents are IAS officers why should they have reservations? With education and economic empowerment, there is social mobility. So then again to seek reservation for the children, we will never get out of it," Justice Nagarathna said, as reported by Live Law.
"That is a matter we have to concern. Also, what is the use then? You are giving reservation. The parents have studied, they are in good jobs, they are getting good income, and the children want reservation again. See, they should get out of reservation," Justice Nagarathna added.
According to Live Law, the case is related to a candidate from the Kuruba community, which is classified under Category II(A) among the backward classes in Karnataka. The candidate was selected for the Karnataka Power Transmission Cooperation Limited as an assistant engineer, but he was rejected from getting the caste validity certificate after the District Caste and Income Verification Committee found that he was from the creamy layer.
During Friday's hearing the apex court showed reservations over continued benefits of reservations to families of the creamy layer, with Justice Nagarathna observing that a person's social status improves with educational and financial empowerment. It said a reassessment of eligibility is needed for the next generation in such cases.
"There has to be some balance. Socially and educationally backward, yes, but once the parents have attend a level because of taking advantage of reservation, if they are both IAS officers, both are in government service, they are very well placed. Social mobility is there. Now they are questioning the exclusion. This also has to be kept in mind," Live Law quoted Justice Nagarathna as saying.
ALSO READ - Supreme Court reconsiders bail denial to Umar Khalid in Delhi riots case, refers matter to larger bench
