India Supreme Court: Centre Opposes SC/ST Creamy Layer

• The Centre has opposed pleas in the Supreme Court to apply the "creamy layer" principle to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• The government argues the "creamy layer" doctrine is applicable only to Other Backward Classes, citing judicial precedents like *Indra Sawhney v. Union of India* and *Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India*.
• Petitions sought income-based sub-quotas within SC, ST, OBC, and EWS reservations, which the Centre contends is a legislative matter.
• The Centre maintains that SC/ST reservations are based on historical and social disadvantage, not solely economic criteria, and Parliament alone can amend their lists.
• Extending the "creamy layer" to SC/STs would fundamentally alter the constitutional basis of their reservations, according to the government.

The Centre's submission highlights a fundamental disagreement over the criteria for reservation benefits, asserting that the constitutional framework for SC/STs is rooted in historical and social disadvantage, not solely economic status.

The Indian government has firmly opposed petitions before the Supreme Court seeking to introduce an income-based "creamy layer" principle for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). This position was articulated in a detailed counter-affidavit filed by the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, which argued that the "creamy layer" doctrine, while applicable to Other Backward Classes (OBCs), cannot be extended to SCs and STs. The Centre's submission highlights a fundamental disagreement over the criteria for reservation benefits, asserting that the constitutional framework for SC/STs is rooted in historical and social disadvantage, not solely economic status.

A batch of petitions, initiated by individuals and groups including Ramashankar Prajapati, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, and Samta Andolan Samiti, has called for judicial intervention to create income-based sub-quotas across the existing reservation structure. These petitioners seek to establish income-based preferences within SC, ST, OBC, and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservations, aiming to prioritize economically weaker individuals within these categories for reservation benefits. However, the Centre maintains that such restructuring falls outside the purview of judicial review under Article 32 of the Constitution, belonging instead to the legislative and executive branches.

The government's affidavit explicitly rejects income as the sole or determinative basis for altering the notified categories of SCs, STs, and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs). While acknowledging that economic disadvantage can be a relevant consideration in identifying backward classes, it emphasizes that for SCs and STs, their inclusion is predicated on centuries of untouchability, social exclusion, discrimination, and geographical isolation. This stance reinforces the government's view that the fundamental nature of SC/ST reservations should not be redefined by economic criteria alone.

The Centre's opposition to extending the "creamy layer" principle to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is deeply rooted in constitutional provisions and established judicial precedents. The government asserted before the Supreme Court that court rulings have consistently exempted SC/ST quotas from wealth-based limitations, even as it noted that other welfare programs already utilize income criteria to target specific needs. This distinction underscores the unique constitutional basis for SC/ST reservations, which is designed to address systemic historical injustices rather than merely economic deprivation.

Crucially, the Centre relied on two landmark Supreme Court judgments to bolster its arguments. The Constitution Bench judgment in *Indra Sawhney v. Union of India* (1992) was cited to affirm that the "creamy layer" principle was specifically developed within the context of reservations for Other Backward Classes, not for SCs or STs. Furthermore, the affidavit referenced *Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India* (2008), where the Supreme Court had expressly clarified that the "creamy layer" doctrine does not automatically extend to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The government further contended that Parliament alone possesses the constitutional authority to amend the Presidential Lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as outlined in Articles 341(2) and 342(2). This legislative prerogative means that neither the executive nor the judiciary can unilaterally alter the constitutional scheme by directing the inclusion or exclusion of groups based solely on income. The Centre's argument thus frames the petitions as an attempt to compel the judiciary to overstep its constitutional bounds and restructure India's reservation policy, a domain reserved for the legislature.

The Centre's firm stance against an income-based sub-quota for SC/STs reflects a commitment to preserving the original intent and constitutional basis of these reservations. The government's affidavit unequivocally stated that the Supreme Court has never recognized the "creamy layer" as a valid reason to exclude members of SCs and STs from reservation benefits solely due to their economic advancement. Extending this doctrine beyond OBCs, it argued, would fundamentally alter the foundational principles upon which reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are established.

The identification process for SCs, STs, and SEBCs has been a comprehensive evolution, shaped by constitutional provisions, recommendations from expert bodies like the Kaka Kalelkar and Mandal Commissions, subsequent parliamentary enactments, and various judicial precedents. This multi-faceted approach ensures that the criteria for inclusion reflect a broad understanding of backwardness, with social and historical factors being paramount, particularly for SCs and STs. The Centre's position reinforces that while economic disadvantage may be a relevant factor in broader welfare schemes, it is neither the sole nor the determinative criterion for defining eligibility within the constitutionally mandated reservation framework for these communities. This ongoing debate is a significant Indian reservation policy update, clarifying the government's commitment to the existing framework.

Lawyers advising on Indian reservation policies should note the Centre's strong opposition to extending the 'creamy layer' principle to SC/STs, reinforcing that economic criteria alone do not alter their constitutional reservation status. This provides clarity on the current eligibility framework for SC/ST beneficiaries and the government's stance against judicial restructuring of reservation policy.

Source: Original reporting via Live Law