New Delhi: The Central government has informed the Supreme Court that any decision to introduce the creamy layer principle for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) falls exclusively within the domain of Parliament, arguing that such a significant change to India’s reservation framework cannot be directed through judicial intervention.
In a counter affidavit filed before the apex court, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment urged the court to dismiss a petition seeking directions to frame policies introducing income-based preferences within reserved categories. The government maintained that reservation in India is rooted in historical and social disadvantage rather than economic status alone, and any restructuring must follow comprehensive empirical studies and legislative deliberation.
The petition had sought a more equitable distribution of reservation benefits by proposing a merit-cum-means approach. It requested the Centre to create income-based sub-classifications within SC, ST, OBC, and EWS categories, ensuring that economically weaker individuals within each reserved group receive greater priority in government employment and educational institutions.
Responding to the plea, the Centre argued that such policy decisions lie within the legislative domain and cautioned the judiciary against directing the executive to formulate reservation policies without a clear constitutional or statutory mandate. It also stressed the importance of maintaining the constitutional principle of separation of powers.
Citing the Supreme Court’s 2005 judgment in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the government stated that if the creamy layer principle is ever to be extended to SCs and STs, Parliament alone has the authority to enact the necessary legislation under Article 341 of the Constitution.
The affidavit further emphasized that the criteria for identifying SCs, STs, and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) are based on historical discrimination, social backwardness, and lack of adequate representation rather than purely economic considerations. It also relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008), which clarified that the creamy layer doctrine applies to OBC reservations but has not been extended to SCs and STs.
The case has once again brought renewed attention to the long-standing debate over whether reservation benefits are reaching the most disadvantaged sections within reserved communities. Many members of forward castes have consistently argued that while economic hardship affects families across all communities, reservation continues to operate primarily on caste-based criteria. They contend that the absence of an income filter for SCs and STs allows relatively better-off families within these categories to repeatedly access reservation benefits, leaving economically weaker candidates from unreserved communities with limited opportunities despite facing financial hardships.
At the same time, supporters of the existing framework argue that reservations are intended to address centuries of social discrimination and structural exclusion, making social backwardness, not income, the constitutional basis for affirmative action.
With the Centre firmly opposing judicial intervention, the issue of extending the creamy layer principle to SCs and STs is likely to remain a matter for Parliament, where any future reform would require broad political consensus and legislative action.
