SC Issued a Notice to Centre regarding a petition for ‘creamy layer’ in SC, ST Reservation

Booking in India

According to current guidelines, Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) receive reservations at 15%, 7.5%, and 27%, respectively, during direct recruitment conducted through all-India open competition.

In direct recruitment across India, excluding open competition, the set percentages are 16.66% for SCs, 7.5% for STs, and 25.84% for OBCs.

The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act 2019 allows the State (including both Central and State Governments) to offer 10% reservation for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) within society.

Creamy Layer Concept

It is a principle aimed at guaranteeing that reservations in educational institutions and government jobs are provided to individuals who are socially and economically underprivileged within a specific group.

It seeks to stop the wealthier or more privileged individuals within a reserved category from accessing these benefits.

Origin: The idea was initially expressed by the Supreme Court of India in the Indra Sawhney case (1992), which is also referred to as the Mandal Commission case.

The Court’s decision highlighted that among the OBC (Other Backward Classes) group, individuals who are comparatively more advantaged should not receive reservation benefits.

Criteria: The "creamy layer" is ascertained through several factors, such as income and educational attainment.

Effect: Utilizing the creamy layer principle, the government seeks to enhance the effectiveness and fairness of its affirmative action policies, guaranteeing that the individuals most in need obtain the intended assistance

Supreme Court Ruling on the Sub-Categorization of Scheduled Castes (SC)

In 2024, the Supreme Court affirmed the legitimacy of sub-classification within Scheduled Caste categories with a 6:1 majority, overturning the five-judge bench ruling in E.V. Chinaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh (2004).

It maintained that the standards for recognizing the creamy layer within SCs/STs must vary from those applied to the Other Backward Castes (OBCs).

In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in the E V Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh case that the SC/ST list represents a ‘homogeneous group’ and cannot be subdivided further.

Argument of Supreme Court in 2024 Ruling:

Equality under Article 14 signifies treating those who are equal in the same way, while permitting the State to categorize groups that are in different situations.

If a reserved category (such as Scheduled Castes) lacks uniformity internally, the State can form smaller groups within it to ensure equitable distribution of benefits.

Not Uniform: The Presidential list serves as a legal construct aimed at recognizing disadvantaged groups, rather than a singular category.

Being included in the SC list does not prevent additional classification for specific benefits.

The SC ruled that Sub-classification should rely on:

Measurable information;

Evidence of increased disadvantage;

Proof of insufficient and inefficient representation in public services.

States should refrain from capricious labeling — they need to demonstrate reasoning and empirical support.

Meaningful representation, rather than mere numerical presence, is essential.

Path Forward

Uphold Constitutional Limits: Guarantee that sub-classification complies with Articles 14, 15(4), 16(4), and does not modify the Presidential List as per Article 341.

Assess Creamy Layer Applicability Thoroughly: When applied to SC/ST, establish distinct criteria separate from OBCs, ensuring it preserves historical protections for these communities.

Enhance Social Uplift Initiatives Beyond Quotas: Supplement reservations with focused education, skills training, entrepreneurship assistance, and anti-discrimination measures to diminish prolonged reliance on quotas.