Govt. Opposes Income-Based Creamy Layer in SC/ST Quotas

• Syllabus: GS II – Polity | Social Justice | Reservation
• Source: TH

Context

• The Union Government told the Supreme Court that the concept of a “creamy layer” should not be extended to SC/ST reservations.
• Petitions had sought exclusion of relatively advanced sections within SC/ST communities, similar to the existing creamy-layer principle for OBCs.

Background

• The creamy-layer principle was developed in the Indra Sawhney case (1992).
• It seeks to exclude relatively advanced sections from reservation benefits so that affirmative action reaches those who remain disadvantaged.
• The 2024 judgment in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh opened the door for sub-classification within SCs/STs, bringing the question of intra-group targeting into focus.

Government’s Stand

• The Centre argued that:
• The creamy-layer doctrine has consistently been applied to OBCs.
• SC/ST reservations are not based solely on economic status.
• Their constitutional rationale is linked to historical and social discrimination, caste-based exclusion and tribal disadvantage.
• Introducing an income-based creamy layer would require a holistic review and thorough empirical study. Economic advancement does not necessarily mean that social discrimination and stigma have disappeared.
• Therefore, the OBC model cannot automatically be transplanted to SC/STs.

What is the Creamy Layer Principle?

• It originated from the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) judgment.
• Its objective is to prevent concentration of reservation benefits among relatively advantaged sections and ensure intra-group equity.

Previous Supreme Court Judgments

1. Indra Sawhney Case, 1992: Upheld OBC reservation.

• Established the creamy-layer exclusion principle for OBCs.
• Distinguished affirmative action based on social backwardness from purely economic criteria.

2. E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2004: Held that SCs constituted a homogeneous class for the purpose of the constitutional SC list. Did not permit State-level sub-classification within the SC category.
3. State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, 2024: A 7-judge Constitution Bench, by 6:1, overruled E.V. Chinnaiah and held that:

• Sub-classification within SCs is constitutionally permissible.
• The purpose is to ensure that benefits reach the more disadvantaged sections within the SC category.

The 2024 judgment primarily dealt with sub-classification, although Justice B.R. Gavai’s opinion strongly advocated consideration of the creamy-layer principle for SC/STs.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 14-Guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws. Also permits reasonable classification to achieve substantive equality.
• Article 15(4)-Enables special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, SCs and STs.
• Article 16(4)- Enables reservation in public employment for a backward class inadequately represented in State services.
• Article 16(4A)- Enables reservation in promotion for SCs/STs, subject to constitutional requirements.
• Article 335- Recognises the claims of SCs and STs to services and posts, while maintaining administrative efficiency.
• Article 341- Deals with Scheduled Castes.
• President specifies the SC list; Parliament can subsequently modify it by law.
• Article 342-Corresponding provision for Scheduled Tribes.

Arguments in favor:

1. Unequal Backwardness- All communities within the SC/ST categories may not experience the same degree of deprivation.
2. Substantive Equality- “Treating unequals equally can perpetuate inequality.” Targeting the most disadvantaged groups can make reservation more effective.
3. Effective Representation- Reservation should produce meaningful representation, not merely numerical presence.
4. Empirical Basis- Data can identify communities that have received fewer benefits from affirmative action.
5. Intra-group Equity- Prevents repeated concentration of benefits among relatively advanced sections.

Arguments in Against

1. Economic advancement does not necessarily eliminate caste stigma, discrimination and social exclusion.
2. SC/ST reservation addresses historical and structural discrimination, unlike a framework based only on economic deprivation.
3. A rigid income criterion could weaken the protective purpose of SC/ST reservations.
4. Determining who is “socially advanced” within SC/ST communities is considerably more complex than applying a simple economic test.
5. Excessive internal categorisation could create competition and divisions within reserved communities.

Way Forward

1. Evidence-based policy
2. Different criteria
3. Protect constitutional safeguards
4. Targeted welfare
5. Periodic review
6. Maintain social cohesion.