Six Supreme Court Judges Out of Seven Judges Larger Bench Proposes Identification Of Creamy Layers Amongst SC/ST To Let Reservation Reach The Most Deserving: One Lady Judge Dissents
A larger constitutional bench of the supreme court has proposed identification of the creamy layers amongst the SC/ST so that reservation benefit is realized in the true sense of the term without discrimination.
Such a policy would reach the most deserving, the bench has said.
The state must evolve a policy to identify creamy layers among the SC ST category and take them out of the fold of affirmative action (reservation). This is the only way to gain true equality,” Justice Gavai said, Justice Vikram Nath has concurred with Justice Gavai
Justice BR Gavai urged that states must develop a policy to identify and exclude the ‘creamy layer’ among Scheduled Castes and Tribes from affirmative action benefits. He argued that this step is essential for achieving genuine equality as envisioned in the Constitution.
The court emphasized the necessity to exclude the ‘creamy layer’ within the Scheduled Castes from reservation benefits intended for SC categories. Currently, this concept is only applied to reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs)
.
He stated that children of individuals who have benefitted from reservations should not be equated with those who have not.
Justice Vikram Nath supported Justice Gavai’s view, asserting that the ‘creamy layer’ principle applicable to OBCs should also apply to SCs and STs, albeit with different criteria.
Justice Pankaj Mithal argued that reservations should be limited to the first generation. Once a member of the first generation attains a higher status through reservations, the subsequent generation should not be entitled to the same benefits.
Justice Satish Chandra Sharma echoed the need for a constitutional mandate to identify the ‘creamy layer’ within SC/ST communities.
Justice Vikram Nath reiterated his agreement with Justice Gavai, emphasizing that the criteria for excluding the ‘creamy layer’ among SC/STs might differ from those used for OBCs.
Justice Mithal suggested that while the current reservation system should continue, there should be a reevaluation and development of new methods to assist the truly disadvantaged within SC/ST/OBC communities, ensuring the preservation of the reservation framework until more effective solutions are in place.
What is the creamy layer?
In India, the ‘creamy layer’ refers to the relatively affluent and better-educated members of the OBCs who are excluded from reservation benefits in government jobs and educational institutions. This ensures that reservations benefit the genuinely underprivileged sections of OBCs.
What are the criteria for determining the creamy layer?
Families with an annual income above Rs 8 lakh are considered part of the creamy layer. This income threshold is periodically revised by the government. Additionally, children of high-ranking officers in Group A and Group B services are excluded.
Moreover, children of professionals such as doctors, engineers, and lawyers with significant income and status are also considered part of the creamy layer. Families owning large tracts of agricultural land beyond certain specified limits are also included in the creamy layer.
Members of the creamy layer are not eligible for the reservation benefits intended for OBCs in areas including government jobs and educational institutions.
However, currently, the concept of the creamy layer does not apply to SCs and STs. All members of these groups are eligible for reservation benefits, irrespective of their economic status. This policy aims to uplift these communities, which have historically faced severe social and economic disadvantages.
When was the ‘creamy layer’ concept introduced?
The concept was introduced following the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Indra Sawhney case (1992), also known as the Mandal Commission case. The court ruled that the advanced sections among OBCs should not monopolize reservation benefits, which should be directed toward the genuinely needy.
Agreeing with Justice Gavai’s observations, Justice Pankaj Mithal stated that reservation among SCs and STs has to be limited to the first generation. He said it should not be extended to the second generation if any member of the first generation has reached higher status through reservation.
“It is also commonly known that disparities and social discrimination, which are highly prevalent in the rural areas, start diminishing when one travels to the urban and metropolitan areas. I have no hesitation to hold that putting a child studying in St. Paul’s High School and St. Stephen’s College and a child studying in a small village in a backward and remote area of the country in the same bracket would obliviate the equality principle enshrined in the Constitution,” Justice Gavai stated.
He held, “Putting the children of the parents from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who on account of benefit of the reservation have reached a high position and ceased to be socially, economically and educationally backward and the children of parents doing manual work in the villages in the same category would defeat the constitutional mandate.”
The bench consisted of seven judges. While six of the seven judges allowed for the classification, Justice Bela M Trivedi dissented from the majority and ruled that such sub-classification is not permissible.
The constitution bench was headed by Justice DY Chandrachud
The members of SC/ST are not often able to climb up the ladder due to the systemic discrimination faced. Article 14 permits sub-classification of caste. The court must check if a class is homogeneous or and a class not integrated for a purpose can be further classified,” the Bench said pronouncing its majority judgment, according to Bar and Bench.
The court then went on to say there is historical evidence and social parameters to indicate clearly that all SC/STs do not constitute a homogenous class. “Historical evidence shows that depressed class were not homogenous class and social conditions show that all classes under that is not uniform. In state of Madhya Pradesh, out of 25 castes only 9 are scheduled castes,” the court added.
The court made it clear that the sub-categorization of SCs and STs does not in any way violate Article 341 of the constitution.
“We have also established through historical evidence that Scheduled Castes notified by the President are a heterogenous class. There is nothing in Articles 15, 16, and 341 that prevents sub-classification for SCs if there is a rationale for distinction and there is a rational nexus for the object sought to be achieved. The state can sub-classify for the inadequate representation of some class,” the court observed.
The court, however, issued a note of caution, saying that sub-classification by states has to be supported by empirical data and should be ensured that it is not based on “whims or political expediency”.
“State can adopt any measures to judge inter se backwardness. If the parameter is untouchable, it is not needed that inter se backwardness is also justified on the basis of that but the State has to prove it by empirical and quantifiable data. The state cannot act on its whims or political expediency and it is amenable to judicial review,” the court underlined.
The court ruling, in effect, provided legal sanctity to laws that provide for such sub-classification in Punjab, Tamil Nadu, and other states.
