5 min learnNew DelhiUp to date: Aug 10, 2026 10:00 AM IST
In an affidavit filed earlier than the Supreme Court docket, the Centre has pushed again in opposition to the demand to introduce the “creamy layer” idea for reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). It argued that the historic disadvantages confronted by these communities can’t be equated with mere financial backwardness and that altering reservation insurance policies falls throughout the area of Parliament, not the courts.
The petition and its context
The federal government was responding to a public interest litigation filed by Bharatiya Janata Occasion politician and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The petition argued that prosperous households throughout the SC and ST classes are monopolising reservation advantages, resulting in an “elite seize” that deprives probably the most marginalised members of those communities of entry to schooling and public employment. The petition sought the implementation of income-based preferences throughout all reserved classes, together with Different Backward Lessons (OBCs) and Economically Weaker Sections.
The petition relied on an August 2024 Supreme Court docket judgment that permitted the sub-classification of SCs and STs. In that case, 4 of the seven judges on the Structure Bench advised extending the creamy layer precept to those teams. Citing these observations, the petition sought to exclude socially and economically superior people from reservation advantages. Upadhyay contends that extending reservations to those that have already achieved social mobility defeats the thing of affirmative motion.
Historic drawback vs financial standing
In its counter-affidavit, the Union authorities drew a distinction between the factors used to establish SCs and STs and people used for OBCs.
SCs, the federal government said, “face historic drawback” stemming from the apply of untouchability. Equally, STs are recognized by their “distinct cultures, geographical isolation and backwardness”. In distinction, OBCs are recognized primarily by means of a mixture of social, instructional and financial disadvantages.
The federal government emphasised that the primary goal of SC and ST reservations is to attain social equality and justice, overcome historic discrimination and guarantee inclusive participation in public life. Maintaining this broader idea of equality in view, the affidavit said that discrimination in opposition to these communities “doesn’t occur on the idea of financial situations.”
Authorized precedent
The Centre relied on a catena of Supreme Court docket judgments. It cited the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment, which upheld the implementation of the Mandal Fee report. Whereas that verdict launched the creamy layer take a look at — an earnings restrict to exclude socially superior individuals from backward lessons — it expressly confined this to OBCs, stating that it “has no relevance within the case of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes.”
Story continues beneath this advert
The federal government additionally referred to the 2008 Ashoka Kumar Thakur case, which clarified that the creamy layer precept doesn’t apply to SCs and STs. It then cited the 2005 E V Chinnaiah judgment, wherein the courtroom held that even when a state of affairs ever arises requiring the exclusion of a creamy layer from SCs, “it is going to be the Parliament alone to take the required legislative steps.”
Separation of powers
The federal government’s defence additionally invoked the constitutional separation of powers. Its affidavit identified that beneath Articles 341 and 342 of the Structure, the President notifies the preliminary lists of SCs and STs. As soon as notified, any inclusion or exclusion from these lists could solely be performed by an Act of Parliament. It’s “not open to State Governments or courts or tribunals or every other authority to switch, amend or alter” these lists, the federal government said.
The Centre argued that the petition seeks a writ of mandamus, a judicial order compelling the federal government to carry out a particular responsibility in a specific method. Nonetheless, the federal government contended that framing insurance policies on reservations or introducing income-based preferences requires a holistic evaluation, empirical information and a legislative mandate.
Citing earlier judgments by the Supreme Court docket, the affidavit argued that courts can not direct the chief to implement a specific coverage “on the bottom that a greater, fairer or wiser various is on the market.” The judiciary, it emphasised, can not step into the sneakers of the legislature to dictate public coverage.
Story continues beneath this advert
The Centre argued that the petition isn’t maintainable beneath Article 32 of the Structure, because it fails to show any infringement of elementary rights. Calling the petition “misconceived” and devoid of advantage, the federal government has urged the Supreme Court docket to dismiss it.
