Introduction
The Supreme Court of India has agreed to examine a crucial constitutional question concerning the exclusion of the creamy layer from Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) reservations. In a significant development, a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Union Government in a writ petition challenging the continued grant of reservations to economically advanced members within SC/ST categories.
The matter, which has long generated intense legal and political debate, has been tagged with another pending petition titled Ramashankar Prajapati and Another v. Union of India and Others. The case raises fundamental questions about equality, social justice, and the constitutional purpose of reservations in India.
Background of the Petition
The writ petition has been filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, seeking judicial intervention to mandate the exclusion of the creamy layer from SC/ST reservation benefits in education and public employment.
According to the petitioner, the non-exclusion of the creamy layer results in disproportionate benefits being cornered by those who have already achieved socio-economic advancement, thereby depriving the genuinely underprivileged members of SC/ST communities.
The Supreme Court has now agreed to consider the issue substantively, indicating that the matter involves important constitutional interpretation.
Connection with the Ramashankar Prajapati Case
The present petition has been tagged with Ramashankar Prajapati and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., a public interest litigation that seeks priority reservation for economically weaker candidates within reserved categories.
The PIL in Ramashankar argues that internal inequities within SC/ST communities must be addressed through targeted affirmative action, rather than blanket reservations that benefit only a small, advanced section repeatedly.
Together, these petitions bring the debate on sub-classification and creamy layer exclusion within SC/ST reservations back into the judicial spotlight.
Constitutional Bench Ruling in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh
The renewed debate gains significance in light of the *Constitution Bench judgment in *State of Punjab and Ors. v. Davinder Singh.
In this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court, by a 6:1 majority, held that:
- Sub-classification within Scheduled Castes is constitutionally permissible
- Separate quotas can be provided to more backward sections within SCs
- The objective of reservations is substantive equality, not formal equality
Notably, the Constitution Bench opined that the concept of the creamy layer must apply to SC/ST reservations, similar to Other Backward Classes (OBCs), to ensure that benefits reach those who truly need them.
Although the observation on creamy layer exclusion was not enforced through a binding direction, it has now become the foundation for renewed constitutional scrutiny.
Constitutional Provisions Invoked
The petitioner contends that non-exclusion of the creamy layer violates multiple constitutional provisions, including:
- Article 14 – Right to Equality
- Article 15 – Prohibition of discrimination
- Article 16 – Equality of opportunity in public employment
- Article 17 – Abolition of untouchability
- Article 38 – Promotion of social justice
- Article 41 – Right to work and education
- Article 46 – Protection of SC/ST interests
- Article 335 – Claims of SC/ST in services
- Article 51A(j) – Duty to strive towards excellence
The plea also invokes the Preamble of the Constitution, asserting that unchecked reservations defeat the ideals of justice, equity, and fraternity.
Key Arguments of the Petitioner
Reservation Is Not Meant to Be Permanent
The petition emphasises that reservations were never envisaged as a permanent entitlement. Instead, they were introduced as a temporary measure to address historical and systemic discrimination.
“Reservation was always intended as a tool for socio-economic justice, not as an inherited privilege,” the petition states.
Creamy Layer Has Monopolised Benefits
According to the petitioner, economically and socially advanced families within SC/ST categories have continued to benefit from reservations across generations, while the most backward sections remain marginalised.
Need for Periodic Assessment
The plea strongly criticises the absence of periodic evaluation mechanisms, arguing that:
- Blanket reservations without review are antithetical to constitutional morality
- Lack of data-driven reassessment undermines equal opportunity
Excessive Reservation Violates Constitutional Spirit
The petition argues that excessive reservation without creamy layer exclusion violates the constitutional principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, ultimately harming national progress.
Legal Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision to Hear the Matter
The Supreme Court’s decision to issue notice and hear the matter is significant for several reasons:
- Revisiting Affirmative Action Jurisprudence
The case could reshape how affirmative action is structured for SC/ST communities. - Clarification on Creamy Layer Applicability
A definitive ruling could resolve long-standing ambiguity on whether the creamy layer principle applies uniformly across reserved categories. - Impact on Government Policy
Any direction from the Court may require legislative or executive action to introduce exclusion criteria and assessment mechanisms. - Balancing Equality and Social Justice
The case highlights the tension between formal equality and substantive equality, a recurring theme in Indian constitutional law.
Broader Implications
If the Supreme Court ultimately mandates the exclusion of the creamy layer from SC/ST reservations, it could lead to:
- Restructuring of reservation policies
- Increased focus on economic and social indicators
- Enhanced access for the most marginalised sections
- Renewed political and constitutional debates on reservation limits
At the same time, the Court will need to carefully balance the historical context of caste-based discrimination with contemporary socio-economic realities.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the plea seeking exclusion of the creamy layer from SC/ST reservations marks a potential turning point in India’s reservation jurisprudence. Anchored in constitutional principles of equality and social justice, the case raises critical questions about who reservations are meant to benefit and how long such benefits should continue.
As the matter proceeds, it is likely to generate intense legal scrutiny, policy debate, and public discourse, with far-reaching consequences for affirmative action in India.
Also Read
5th NUJS International Client Counselling Competition 2026 at NUJS Kolkata, Register by 25 Jan!
