New Delhi: The Supreme Court Monday sought responses from the Union government and all state governments on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the implementation of the ‘creamy layer’ principle in reservations for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (SCs/STs).
The petition stated that reservation was conceived as a “remedial and compensatory” measure aimed at addressing historical discrimination and disadvantage. However, over time, it claimed, an elite class has emerged within SC/ST communities that has already achieved social mobility and economic stability.
Despite this advancement, such sections corner reservation benefits generation after generation, the plea said, effectively excluding the weakest and most marginalised members of the community from opportunities in education and public employment.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on the writ petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Article 32 gives citizens the right to approach the Supreme Court for constitutional remedies when their fundamental rights are violated.
Appearing before the apex court, Upadhyay contended that when a member of an SC/ST family has already attained a constitutional post or a senior government position, the children of such a person should not be permitted to avail of reservation benefits.
He argued that extending reservations to such families defeats the very object of affirmative action, which is to uplift those who continue to suffer from entrenched social, educational and economic backwardness.
‘Capture by elites’
According to the petition, the absence of a creamy layer exclusion has resulted in “elite capture” of reservation benefits. The plea claimed that affluent and socially advanced families within SC/ST categories disproportionately secure reserved seats in Union and State civil services as well as competitive examinations such as JEE, NEET and CLAT.
This, it argued, has created a “class within a caste” or a “forward-backward” divide, where first-generation learners and those from rural or impoverished backgrounds are unable to access the intended benefits of affirmative action.
The PIL contended that the non-exclusion of the creamy layer is manifestly arbitrary and violative of the right to equality under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. It asserted that “treating unequals as equals is as much a violation of equality as treating equals unequally.”
The petition argued that there is no intelligible differentia between an uplifted SC/ST family and a general category family of the same social and economic status, rendering blanket reservations constitutionally unsustainable.
Constituent Assembly debates
Referring to the Constituent Assembly debates, the plea states that reservation was never intended to become an “undifferentiated” entitlement. “B.R. Ambedkar repeatedly stated that reservation is not a privilege, but a remedy for injustice created by the social system and that equality does not mean identical treatment of the unequal,” it said.
The PIL relied significantly on judicial pronouncements, particularly the constitution bench judgment in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh. In a landmark judgment delivered 1 August, 2024, a seven-judge bench headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud suggested the application of the creamy layer principle to SCs and STs while availing quota benefits.
The petition, meanwhile, highlighted that the court had recognised that Scheduled Castes are not a homogenous class and that the benefits of reservation must reach the “weakest of the weak.”
It also referred to the opinion of then Justice B.R. Gavai in the 2024 judgment, where he observed: “When the 9-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney held that applicability of such a test (creamy layer test) in so far as Other Backward Classes are concerned would advance equality as enshrined in the Constitution, then why such a test should not also be made applicable to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes?”
According to the plea, the non-exclusion of the creamy layer has grave national, social and economic consequences. These include the monopolisation of benefits by elite sections, erosion of public confidence in affirmative action, compromise of administrative efficiency, and violation of the constitutional principles of equality, justice and fraternity.
The petitioner sought directions for the implementation of a creamy layer system to exclude socially and economically advanced individuals within SC/ST categories from reservation benefits. It also called for periodic assessments by an expert body to ensure that affirmative action reaches those who continue to face genuine disadvantage.
The plea clarified that it does not seek any change to the Presidential Lists under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, but only exclusion of individuals who have already overcome backwardness from availing reservation benefits.
The two Articles empower the President to specify which castes, races, or tribes are SCs or STs for a specific state or Union Territory.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: National security over liberty: How SC’s Umar-Sharjeel bail order runs counter to earlier rulings
I have had a consistent take on this. You have to add a creamy layer for SC/ST community just like you did for OBC.
Secondly reservations need to be removed for OBCs and should only be allowed for SC/ST community. OBC reservations came as a result of appeasement which started with Congress but definitely doesn’t have opposition from BJP.
My community is apparently classified as OBC even though none in my community are “backward”. We literally own lands and are decently wealthy by all accounts. OBC is a scam which is why creamy layers exist in OBC (yes I am part of that) we need to end affirmative actions for OBCs. Everyone is playing the victim card in this planet while the real victims are voiceless.