SC issues notice on PIL to implement creamy layer in SC/ST reservations
Advertisement
New Delhi, March 10 : The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking implementation of the “creamy layer” principle within reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
A Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Surya Kant, and comprising Justices R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi sought responses from the Union government as well as state governments and Union Territory (UT) administrations in the matter, and tagged the plea with a pending petition seeking similar relief.
The latest petition filed by former bureaucrat Gyanendra Kumar Khare has arrayed the Centre, all state governments, UTs and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) as respondents.
The plea, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, contends that the continued non-implementation of the creamy layer exclusion within SC/ST reservations is “arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of the basic structure of the Constitution”.
According to the petition, reservation under the Constitution was conceived as a remedial measure to address historical injustice and structural inequality, but was never intended to be a permanent or unconditional entitlement.
“The continued non-exclusion of the creamy layer has serious national consequences, as it fosters resentment between reserved and non-reserved categories and concentrates power and opportunity in hands of elite section,” the PIL said.
It further argued that the absence of creamy layer exclusion has led to internal stratification within SC/ST communities, creating a “class within a class” where relatively advanced families repeatedly avail reservation benefits while the most disadvantaged sections remain excluded.
“Allowing affluent SC/ST to repeatedly avail such benefits deprives poorer members of the community of opportunities to escape poverty and undermines economic justice and national development,” the petition added.
The petitioner has sought directions to the Centre and states to evolve a mechanism for identification and exclusion of the creamy layer within SC/ST reservations in order to ensure that the benefits of affirmative action reach the most disadvantaged sections of society.
The plea relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court, including the landmark Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India ruling that introduced the concept of creamy layer for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), as well as subsequent decisions emphasising the need to ensure that reservation benefits reach the genuinely disadvantaged sections.
Referring to the recent Constitution Bench verdict in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh, the petition said the apex court has already recognised that Scheduled Castes are not a homogeneous class and that sub-classification within them is constitutionally permissible.
In a landmark judgment delivered on August 1, 2024, a seven-judge Constitution Bench headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud had suggested the application of the “creamy layer” principle to SCs/STs for availing quota benefits, with the caveat that while providing for sub-classification, the government could not reserve 100 per cent of seats for a particular sub-class to the exclusion of others.
A Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Surya Kant, and comprising Justices R. Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi sought responses from the Union government as well as state governments and Union Territory (UT) administrations in the matter, and tagged the plea with a pending petition seeking similar relief.
The latest petition filed by former bureaucrat Gyanendra Kumar Khare has arrayed the Centre, all state governments, UTs and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) as respondents.
The plea, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, contends that the continued non-implementation of the creamy layer exclusion within SC/ST reservations is “arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of the basic structure of the Constitution”.
According to the petition, reservation under the Constitution was conceived as a remedial measure to address historical injustice and structural inequality, but was never intended to be a permanent or unconditional entitlement.
“The continued non-exclusion of the creamy layer has serious national consequences, as it fosters resentment between reserved and non-reserved categories and concentrates power and opportunity in hands of elite section,” the PIL said.
It further argued that the absence of creamy layer exclusion has led to internal stratification within SC/ST communities, creating a “class within a class” where relatively advanced families repeatedly avail reservation benefits while the most disadvantaged sections remain excluded.
“Allowing affluent SC/ST to repeatedly avail such benefits deprives poorer members of the community of opportunities to escape poverty and undermines economic justice and national development,” the petition added.
The petitioner has sought directions to the Centre and states to evolve a mechanism for identification and exclusion of the creamy layer within SC/ST reservations in order to ensure that the benefits of affirmative action reach the most disadvantaged sections of society.
The plea relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court, including the landmark Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India ruling that introduced the concept of creamy layer for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), as well as subsequent decisions emphasising the need to ensure that reservation benefits reach the genuinely disadvantaged sections.
Referring to the recent Constitution Bench verdict in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Singh, the petition said the apex court has already recognised that Scheduled Castes are not a homogeneous class and that sub-classification within them is constitutionally permissible.
In a landmark judgment delivered on August 1, 2024, a seven-judge Constitution Bench headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud had suggested the application of the “creamy layer” principle to SCs/STs for availing quota benefits, with the caveat that while providing for sub-classification, the government could not reserve 100 per cent of seats for a particular sub-class to the exclusion of others.
Advertisement
Note: The content of this article is sourced from a news agency and has not been edited by the ap7am team.