The Union Government has told the Supreme Court, in a counter-affidavit, that the creamy layer principle should not be extended to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). It argues that reservation for these groups addresses historical and structural caste-based discrimination, and is not only a response to economic backwardness.
The filing follows the seven-judge Constitution Bench judgment in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024). That ruling permitted sub-classification within SC/ST quotas and also suggested considering a creamy layer mechanism to prevent "elite capture" of reservation benefits.
The creamy layer is a threshold used to exclude socially, economically and educationally advanced individuals from a reserved category. The Supreme Court established it in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), which upheld the 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government jobs while directing that the creamy layer be excluded. The court reasoned from "relative equality": treating a wealthy and a poor person of the same caste as equals would violate the right to equality.
The principle is applied strictly to OBCs, and only non-creamy layer candidates are eligible for the 27% quota. It has historically not been applied to SCs and STs, whose backwardness is recognised as stemming from untouchability, social stigmatisation and geographical isolation as well as economic deprivation. The Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation, introduced in 2019, also carries an income-based exclusion. It is open only to people outside the SC, ST and OBC quotas whose family income and assets fall within prescribed limits.
Sub-categorisation is a different exercise. It divides an existing quota into smaller shares for specific groups within the same category, whereas creamy layer exclusion removes certain individuals from the quota altogether. Telangana, Haryana, Punjab and Andhra Pradesh have long sub-classified SC quotas, and Mizoram has sub-categorised the ST quota. The Centre itself uses sub-categorisation for STs in admissions to Eklavya Model Residential Schools, to ensure minimum representation for Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs).
The Centre says SC/ST backwardness is rooted in centuries of oppression and untouchability, the subject of Article 17, and cannot be treated as ordinary economic deprivation. Economic mobility, it argues, does not remove caste prejudice. A first-generation SC/ST Class-I officer may reach financial parity yet still lack social capital, in the form of institutional networks, and cultural capital, a distinction it draws from the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu.
OBCs, it notes, are identified under Article 340 on the basis of social and educational backwardness, where economic criteria can serve as a proxy. The same logic, it says, does not hold for SCs and STs.
The Centre also relies on Articles 341(2) and 342(2), under which any inclusion in or exclusion from the Presidential lists of SCs and STs can only be made by Parliament by law. A creamy layer imposed by courts would, it argues, effectively alter those lists, exceed judicial powers and breach the separation of powers. It cites State of Maharashtra v. Milind (2001), which held that courts cannot alter the SC/ST lists. It adds that Article 16(4A), inserted by the 77th Constitutional Amendment in 1995, specially protects SC/ST reservation in promotions, and that transplanting an OBC-specific doctrine ignores the distinct legislative history of these amendments.
Precedent points the other way in one respect. In Jarnail Singh (2018), the court held that excluding a creamy layer from reservation benefits does not itself alter the Presidential lists.
On data, the government said an income-based exclusion without a contemporary nationwide Socio-Economic Caste Census is analytically flawed and arbitrary. Census 2027 will include caste enumeration, but its results are not yet available, so the data gap continues to limit evidence-based identification of advanced sections within SC/ST communities.
The Centre proposes these measures for a more equitable distribution of benefits:
With reference to the creamy layer and sub-categorisation in reservation, consider the following statements:
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Consider the following pairs:
Case / Provision : Point stated in the article
How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?
Which one of the following best describes the Centre's argument against extending the creamy layer to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes?
