Decoded: What's 'creamy layer' proposed by SC Judges for SC/ST quotas

While upholding that states have the authority to further subdivide groups within reserved categories, 4 out of the 7 judge bench advocated for exclusion of the 'creamy layer' among SC/STs

In a landmark decision on August 1, a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld that states have the authority to further subdivide groups within reserved categories based on varying levels of backwardness to better allocate reservation benefits.

The judgement, delivered by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud along with Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Manoj Misra, saw a majority of six judges in favour of sub-classification, with Justice Trivedi dissenting.

The court emphasised 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).

 

What SC judges said about 'creamy layer' in SC/ST?

According to LiveLaw, 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. 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, emphasising 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 judgement in the Indra Sawhney case (1992), also known as the Mandal Commission case. The court ruled that the advanced sections among OBCs should not monopolise reservation benefits, which should be directed towards the genuinely needy.

Despite discussions on applying the 'creamy layer' criteria to SCs and STs, it has not been implemented, as these communities are generally seen as requiring continued support due to historical social and economic disadvantages.