Centre Asserts Creamy Layer Principle Excludes Quotas for SCs and STs in Supreme Court Affidavit

The Indian government has informed the Supreme Court that the “creamy layer” principle does not apply to reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). This statement comes as the Centre opposes public interest litigations (PILs) that seek to implement this principle in the context of SC and ST reservations and calls for the formulation of more equitable reservation policies in government employment.

Government’s Position on Creamy Layer Principle

The Centre contends that the PILs filed do not demonstrate any violation of fundamental rights as outlined in the Constitution. The government emphasized that there has been no definitive ruling establishing the applicability of the creamy layer principle to SCs and STs. Instead, references to this concept appear to be general observations related to reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs).

In its affidavit, the government cited a Constitution bench ruling in the case of Ashoka Kumar Thakur versus Union of India, clarifying that the creamy layer principle is not applicable to SCs and STs for reservation purposes.

Historical Context of the Creamy Layer Principle

The creamy layer principle was first articulated by the Supreme Court in its landmark 1992 Mandal case verdict, which excluded affluent individuals from the Backward Classes from benefiting from reservations in government jobs and educational institutions.

The government further stated that any modifications to the reservation policy, particularly those introducing income-based preferences within reserved categories, should be preceded by a comprehensive review and empirical studies, including socio-economic data of beneficiaries.

Legal Arguments Against the PILs

The Centre’s affidavit requested the dismissal of the PILs filed by petitioners Ramashankar Prajapati and advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, asserting that they are not maintainable under the law. The government argued that these petitions do not raise any constitutional questions requiring judicial interpretation and do not indicate any infringement of fundamental rights, thus lacking merit under Article 32.

The affidavit highlighted that the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution are primarily negative in nature. It stated that individuals cannot enforce these rights through writ petitions unless they have been infringed upon by the state.

Legislative Authority on SC and ST Designation

The affidavit from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment noted that the current petition disregards legal precedents established by the Supreme Court regarding the scope of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. It clarified that any notification designating SCs and STs can only be amended through legislation passed by Parliament.

The government emphasized that any caste, tribe, or group can only be included or excluded from the SC or ST lists through parliamentary law, and no other authority, including state governments or courts, has the power to alter these lists.

Government’s Critique of the PILs

Describing the petition as “misconceived,” the government pointed out that similar provisions have been enacted for SEBCs through the Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) Act, 2018. The Centre also noted that most welfare schemes for SCs, STs, and SEBCs, aside from educational reservations, include means tests to ensure that benefits reach those who genuinely need them.

The government criticized the reliefs sought in the PILs as vague and lacking substantive evidence. It stated that the petitioners failed to identify specific government schemes that should be extended or how these would benefit below-poverty-line individuals across communities.

Conclusion of Government’s Arguments

The affidavit concluded that the writ petition lacks legal merit and should be dismissed on the grounds of maintainability and non-justiciability. It urged the court to avoid directing the executive to formulate policies on reservations or income-based preferences without empirical data or legislative backing, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the separation of powers.

On August 11 of the previous year, the Supreme Court issued a notice regarding the PIL filed by Prajapati and others, which sought to implement income-based preferences within each reserved category. On January 12, the court also issued a notice to the Centre and state governments concerning Upadhyay’s PIL, which called for the application of the creamy layer principle to SC and ST reservations.

Upadhyay argued that children of SC or ST families who have attained senior government positions should not be eligible for reservation benefits.

As reported by www.timesnownews.com.

Explore the latest digital editions of FAME Delivered in the Magazine section: https://famedelivered.com/magazine/

Published on 2026-08-06 22:13:00 • By FAME Delivered News Desk