The Centre has opposed implementing the creamy layer principle in SC/ST reservations before the Supreme Court, arguing that such a policy requires empirical study and executive decision-making. The government urged dismissal of the PIL, citing constitutional provisions and judicial precedents.
The Union government has strongly opposed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking the implementation of the “creamy layer” principle in reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), arguing that such a significant policy decision cannot be directed through judicial intervention. In a detailed counter affidavit filed before the apex court, the Centre maintained that any proposal to introduce the creamy layer principle within SC/ST reservations must be based on a comprehensive empirical study and a broader policy review rather than judicial orders.
The affidavit, submitted by the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, asserted that the writ petition is legally untenable as it seeks a direction compelling the executive to formulate reservation policy in a particular manner. According to the government, framing reservation policy falls exclusively within the executive and legislative domain unless an existing policy violates constitutional or statutory provisions.
“The present writ petition is not maintainable in law as it essentially prays for issuance of a mandamus to the executive to frame policy in a particular manner, which is beyond the judicial domain,” the Centre stated in its affidavit.
The Union government emphasized that the identification of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) has historically been based on social discrimination, historical injustice, and educational backwardness rather than economic status alone. It argued that reservation policies are designed to remedy centuries of systemic exclusion and social inequality, making them fundamentally different from welfare schemes that rely on income-based eligibility criteria.
According to the affidavit, reservation for SCs and STs serves broader constitutional objectives of ensuring social justice, promoting equality, correcting historical discrimination, and facilitating inclusive participation in education and public employment. The government stressed that discrimination faced by these communities is rooted in caste and social identity rather than financial circumstances.
The Centre further clarified that while several welfare and development schemes for SCs, STs, and OBCs already incorporate means tests to ensure benefits reach economically weaker individuals, reservation in educational institutions and public employment operates under a different constitutional framework. Income limits are therefore relevant in welfare schemes but not necessarily in determining eligibility for reservation benefits.
The affidavit also relied extensively on judicial precedents to support the government’s position. It referred to the landmark Constitution Bench judgment in the Indra Sawhney case, which introduced the creamy layer principle for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The Centre pointed out that the Supreme Court had expressly observed in that judgment that the discussion on the creamy layer concept had “no relevance” concerning Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The government further cited subsequent Supreme Court rulings that have consistently maintained the distinction between OBC reservations and SC/ST reservations, arguing that the creamy layer principle has never been judicially extended to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes as a mandatory constitutional requirement.
Addressing the petitioner’s demand for excluding socially and economically advanced families within SC/ST communities from reservation benefits, the Centre argued that such a proposal requires detailed socio-economic analysis rather than assumptions. It maintained that introducing income-based preferences within reserved categories would require a holistic review supported by reliable empirical data regarding the actual distribution of reservation benefits among various sections within these communities.
The affidavit stated that any policy reform of this nature should be preceded by a thorough empirical study examining socio-economic conditions, patterns of representation, and the effectiveness of the existing reservation system. Such a comprehensive exercise, the government argued, is essential before considering any structural changes to affirmative action policies.
The Union government also highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in matters involving public policy. Referring to multiple Supreme Court decisions, it argued that courts cannot direct the executive to adopt a specific policy merely because an alternative approach appears preferable.
Quoting an earlier Supreme Court judgment, the affidavit stated that it is not the role of courts to determine whether a particular public policy is wise or whether a better alternative exists. Judicial interference, it argued, is justified only when a policy is arbitrary, unconstitutional, or violates statutory rights.
Calling the public interest litigation “devoid of merit,” the Centre urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition. It contended that the plea fails to demonstrate any infringement of fundamental rights under the Constitution or establish grounds for invoking the Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32.
The case assumes significance because the Supreme Court had earlier issued notices to the Union government and all state governments in response to the PIL. The petitioners have argued that socially and economically advanced families within SC/ST communities continue to receive reservation benefits across generations, thereby limiting opportunities for the most disadvantaged members within those communities.
| Also Read: RSS Chief Trusts Gen Z, Supports Peaceful Student Protests |
The Centre’s response, however, underscores its position that reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is primarily intended to address historical social discrimination rather than economic inequality. By insisting that any modification to the existing framework must be supported by comprehensive empirical evidence and careful policy consideration, the government has reaffirmed its commitment to preserving the constitutional foundations of the reservation system while leaving the possibility of future policy review to the executive process rather than judicial mandate.
