The bench emphasized that the determination of whether individuals who have availed themselves of quota benefits and subsequently attained a level of advancement should continue to receive reservation benefits falls within the purview of the legislative and executive authorities. This stance underscores the Court's position that policy decisions related to reservations are best addressed by the branches of government responsible for policy formulation and implementation.
This perspective aligns with the Court's earlier observations on the distribution of reservation benefits. In August 2020, the Supreme Court noted that the advantages of reservation policies were not adequately reaching the most disadvantaged sections within the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). The Court highlighted that certain communities within these categories had disproportionately benefited from reservations, leaving the neediest and poorest segments marginalized. The Court suggested that a more equitable distribution mechanism might be necessary to ensure that reservation benefits reach those who are truly in need.
The issue of reservation within reservation, or sub-categorization, has been a topic of debate. The objective is to ensure that marginalized groups within the broader reserved categories receive due representation and benefits. The Court's recent remarks indicate a preference for the legislative and executive branches to take the lead in formulating policies that address these concerns, rather than judicial intervention.