Loading…
The Centre informed the Supreme Court on 6 August 2026 that the creamy layer concept cannot be extended to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as it has been to OBCs.
The government argued that SC/ST reservation rests on past discrimination, social backwardness, caste and tribe status and inadequate representation — not on economic criteria alone.
It contended that applying an income-based exclusion would require a comprehensive review and extensive empirical study.
The Centre also submitted that framing such a policy is beyond the judicial domain and belongs to the executive and Parliament.
The petition follows the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling permitting sub-classification within the SC and ST categories.
The creamy layer principle holds that the relatively advanced members of a backward class should be excluded from reservation benefits, so that support reaches the more disadvantaged within that class. It was established by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), commonly called the Mandal Commission case, in which the Court upheld reservation for Other Backward Classes but held that the creamy layer among them must be excluded. The doctrine is distinct from EWS reservation, which is a separate provision benefiting economically weaker sections outside the existing reserved categories.
Simple Analogy: It is the argument that a scholarship meant for a struggling group should not go to the few members of that group who have already reached comfort — with the contested question being whether comfort alone tells you the disadvantage has ended.
| Question | Case for extending creamy layer to SC/ST | Centre's position against |
|---|---|---|
| Basis of reservation | Benefits should reach the most disadvantaged within the group | Reservation rests on caste and tribe status and historical discrimination, not economic position alone |
| Effect of economic advancement | Advanced members no longer need protection | Economic advancement does not remove social disabilities attached to caste or tribal identity |
| Evidence required | Existing income criteria used for OBCs could be adapted | A comprehensive review and extensive empirical study would be required first |
| Who should decide | The Court may direct exclusion | Policy of this kind lies with the executive and Parliament, not the judiciary |
GS Paper 2 > Polity — mechanisms for protection of vulnerable sections; Social Justice; landmark judgments
General Awareness > Indian Polity and landmark cases
General Awareness > Polity
The relatively advanced members of a backward class who are excluded from reservation benefits so that support reaches the more disadvantaged.
The Mandal Commission case, in which the Supreme Court upheld OBC reservation while requiring exclusion of the creamy layer.
Dividing a reserved category into sub-groups so that benefits reach the more disadvantaged within it; upheld by the Supreme Court in 2024 by a 6:1 majority.
A writ directing a public authority to perform its legal duty; the Centre argued it cannot be used to direct the framing of policy in a particular manner.
The earlier five-judge decision against sub-classification, set aside by the 2024 ruling.