New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that calls for the introduction of an income-based prioritisation system within the existing reservations for members of the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). The petitioners argue that such an approach would ensure equitable access to benefits for the most economically disadvantaged members of these communities without altering the existing caste-based quota framework.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi issued a notice to the Union government, directing it to file its response by October 10. The PIL, filed by petitioners Ramashankar Prajapati and Yamuna Prasad through advocate Sandeep Singh, seeks policy measures aimed at making the reservation system in government employment more equitable.
The bench, while issuing notice, cautioned the petitioners’ counsel to be prepared for “a lot of opposition,” noting that the matter could have far-reaching implications for the country’s reservation policies.
The plea asserts that while the reservation framework was originally introduced to uplift historically disadvantaged communities, it has increasingly benefited those from relatively better-off economic strata within these communities, leaving the poorest sections behind.
According to the petitioners, “despite decades of reservation, the most economically deprived have often been excluded from opportunities, with benefits being captured by the relatively affluent among the reserved categories.” They argue that incorporating an income-based prioritisation mechanism would ensure that assistance reaches those most in need today.
The PIL emphasises that the proposed reforms would strengthen Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before law, prohibit discrimination, and ensure equality of opportunity in public employment. Importantly, the petitioners stress that the proposal is not aimed at abolishing or undermining caste-based reservations, but rather refining them to serve their intended purpose more effectively.
Highlighting intra-community disparities, the petitioners state that over the past 75 years, reservations have disproportionately benefited a select segment within the SC and ST categories. This, they argue, has created economic inequality even within these groups, undermining the broader goal of holistic social upliftment.
“The necessity of such an approach stems from the reality that the intended beneficiaries of reservation policies — those facing the deepest levels of poverty and social exclusion — often remain at the margins,” the petition reads. “By introducing income-based prioritisation, opportunities can be channelled towards those who require them the most.”
The petitioners have proposed that income criteria be used as a tool to determine the order of preference for reservation benefits within the SC and ST categories. This, they say, would ensure that individuals from low-income backgrounds are given precedence in access to reserved positions, without reducing the overall quota percentage for these communities.
Such a framework, according to the petition, would prevent the benefits from being monopolised by individuals and families who have already achieved a higher level of economic stability, thereby making the reservation system more inclusive and effective.
While the petition has been welcomed by some as a necessary step towards ensuring fairness, the bench’s observation about possible opposition highlights the contentious nature of the proposal. Critics of income-based prioritisation argue that caste-based discrimination and social exclusion cannot be fully addressed through economic criteria alone, and that such measures risk diluting the social justice objectives of the reservation system.
Supporters, however, see the PIL as an opportunity to address persistent inequities and ensure that affirmative action policies keep pace with changing socio-economic realities.
The Centre’s response, due in early October, is expected to outline its stance on whether such a reform can be accommodated within the existing legal and constitutional framework.
