Why in news?

The Union government has filed a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court opposing petitions that seek to extend the "creamy layer" exclusion — currently applicable to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) — to Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) reservations.

The government has argued that historical disadvantage suffered by SCs and STs cannot be equated with the economic backwardness criterion used for OBCs.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Background: How the Issue Arose
• Understanding the Concepts: Sub-Categorisation vs Creamy Layer
• The Centre's Legal Arguments
• Where Sub-Categorisation Has Actually Been Used

Background: How the Issue Arose?

• The current round of litigation traces back to the Supreme Court's August 2024 Davinder Singh judgment, delivered by a seven-judge Bench headed by then Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
• That verdict recognised the heterogeneity within SC and ST communities and permitted State governments to sub-categorise within these lists so that more backward groups are not crowded out by relatively advanced ones.
• In his opinion, Justice B.R. Gavai went further, suggesting the government seriously consider a creamy layer exclusion for SC/STs too, similar to what exists for OBCs.
• This observation triggered a debate around this issue.
• The Present Petition Before the Court
  • The present petition, filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, alleges "elite capture" of SC/ST reservation benefits by affluent families, seeking income-based exclusions across all reserved categories.
  • It cites four of seven Davinder Singh judges who favoured extending the creamy layer principle to SC/STs.

Understanding the Concepts: Sub-Categorisation vs Creamy Layer

• These two tools are often discussed together but serve different purposes:
  • Sub-categorisation divides an existing reservation quota into smaller shares within a category, ensuring more backward groups get guaranteed representation. It does not deny reservation to anyone; it only redistributes the existing pie.
  • Creamy layer exclusion identifies individuals or families who have already achieved sufficient social and economic advancement and excludes them entirely from availing reservation benefits.
• The creamy layer concept originated in the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment, which upheld OBC reservations based on the Mandal Commission report.
• Crucially, that judgment explicitly stated the creamy layer test has no relevance for SCs and STs, since their backwardness stems from untouchability and social exclusion rather than economic status alone.

The Centre's Legal Arguments

• The government's affidavit rests on several strands of reasoning.
• First, it draws a distinction in the basis of identification: SCs are marked by "historical disadvantage" from untouchability, while STs are identified by distinct culture, geographical isolation and backwardness — neither is an economic classification like OBC status.
• Second, it cites settled precedent: the 2008 Ashoka Kumar Thakur case confirmed creamy layer does not apply to SC/STs, and the 2005 E.V. Chinnaiah judgment held that any such exclusion, if ever required, could only be introduced by Parliament, not the courts.
• Third, the Centre invokes separation of powers. Under Articles 341 and 342, only the President notifies SC/ST lists, and any inclusion or exclusion requires an Act of Parliament — no other authority, including State governments or courts, can alter these lists.
• On this basis, the government contends that the petition effectively seeks a writ of mandamus asking courts to direct executive policy, which is impermissible since reservation policy requires a holistic review and empirical data, not judicial intervention.
• It has also questioned the petition's maintainability under Article 32, arguing no fundamental right violation has been shown.
• Notably, the Centre has left open a conditional pathway: any change to reservation policy would require a "holistic review and thorough empirical study" of socio-economic data — but such a review must be initiated by the government, not ordered by the judiciary.

Where Sub-Categorisation Has Actually Been Used?

• Unlike creamy layer, sub-categorisation has already been implemented at the State level — for instance, Telangana, Haryana and Punjab have sub-classified their SC category, while Mizoram has done so for STs.
• At the Central level, the clearest example is the sub-division of the ST quota in Eklavya Model Residential Schools to ensure representation for Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs).
• Meanwhile, the Centre has still not acted on the 2017 G. Rohini Commission report on OBC sub-categorisation, nor made its national stance clear.

Conclusion

The debate underscores a fundamental distinction between economic and historical-social backwardness in India's reservation framework.

While sub-categorisation strengthens equitable distribution within categories, the Centre insists creamy layer exclusion is constitutionally and legally confined to OBCs, leaving any change to Parliament's exclusive domain.