Sc St Creamy Layer Centre Supreme Court Reservation

In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Centre has pushed back against the demand to introduce the “creamy layer” concept for reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). It argued that the historical disadvantages faced by these communities cannot be equated with mere economic backwardness and that altering reservation policies falls within the domain of Parliament, not the courts.

The government was responding to a public interest litigation filed by Bharatiya Janata Party politician and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The petition argued that affluent families within the SC and ST categories are monopolising reservation benefits, leading to an “elite capture” that deprives the most marginalised members of these communities of access to education and public employment. The petition sought the implementation of income-based preferences across all reserved categories, including Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Economically Weaker Sections.

The petition relied on an August 2024 Supreme Court judgment that permitted the sub-classification of SCs and STs. In that case, four of the seven judges on the Constitution Bench suggested extending the creamy layer principle to these groups. Citing these observations, the petition sought to exclude socially and economically advanced individuals from reservation benefits. Upadhyay contends that extending reservations to those who have already achieved social mobility defeats the object of affirmative action.

Historical disadvantage vs economic status

In its counter-affidavit, the Union government drew a distinction between the criteria used to identify SCs and STs and those used for OBCs.

SCs, the government stated, “face historical disadvantage” stemming from the practice of untouchability. Similarly, STs are identified by their “distinct cultures, geographical isolation and backwardness”. In contrast, OBCs are identified primarily through a combination of social, educational and economic disadvantages.

The government emphasised that the main objective of SC and ST reservations is to achieve social equality and justice, overcome historical discrimination and ensure inclusive participation in public life. Keeping this broader concept of equality in view, the affidavit stated that discrimination against these communities “does not happen on the basis of economic conditions.”

The Centre relied on a catena of Supreme Court judgments. It cited the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment, which upheld the implementation of the Mandal Commission report. While that verdict introduced the creamy layer test — an income limit to exclude socially advanced persons from backward classes — it expressly confined this to OBCs, stating that it “has no relevance in the case of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes.”

The government also referred to the 2008 Ashoka Kumar Thakur case, which clarified that the creamy layer principle does not apply to SCs and STs. It then cited the 2005 E V Chinnaiah judgment, in which the court held that even if a situation ever arises requiring the exclusion of a creamy layer from SCs, “it will be the Parliament alone to take the necessary legislative steps.”

The government’s defence also invoked the constitutional separation of powers. Its affidavit pointed out that under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, the President notifies the initial lists of SCs and STs. Once notified, any inclusion or exclusion from these lists may only be done by an Act of Parliament. It is “not open to State Governments or courts or tribunals or any other authority to modify, amend or alter” these lists, the government stated.

The Centre argued that the petition seeks a writ of mandamus, a judicial order compelling the government to perform a specific duty in a particular manner. However, the government contended that framing policies on reservations or introducing income-based preferences requires a holistic review, empirical data and a legislative mandate.

Citing previous judgments by the Supreme Court, the affidavit argued that courts cannot direct the executive to implement a particular policy “on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available.” The judiciary, it emphasised, cannot step into the shoes of the legislature to dictate public policy.

The Centre argued that the petition is not maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution, as it fails to demonstrate any infringement of fundamental rights. Calling the petition “misconceived” and devoid of merit, the government has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss it.