# Centre Rejects Income Criteria and Creamy Layer for SC and ST Quotas in Supreme Court Affidavit

> The central government has informed the Supreme Court that the creamy layer concept cannot be applied to SC and ST reservations, emphasizing that constitutional quotas are anchored in historical and social discrimination rather than purely economic conditions.

**Type:** article · **Category:** Bihar · **Published:** 2026-08-07 · **Source:** TrendKia
**Canonical:** https://trendkia.com/en/bihar/supreme-court-men-kendra-ka-spashta-rukha-sc-aura-st-ke-lie-aya-adharita-arakshana-aura-krimi-leyara-kharija-14616 · **Language:** English
**Tags:** Reservation, Supreme Court, Creamy Layer, Central Government, SC ST Quota, Constitution, Ashwini Upadhyay

The existing framework governing reservations for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) cannot be altered purely on economic parameters or income levels, the central government has asserted in a comprehensive counter-affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court. Submitted through the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, the document stresses that India's constitutional quota system is deeply anchored in addressing centuries of historical, social, and educational backwardness, meaning it cannot be restructured solely around financial standing.

## Opposition to Extending Creamy Layer to SC and ST Categories
In its response before the highest court, the Centre firmly opposed prayers seeking the application of the creamy layer exclusion rule to SC and ST communities. The government highlighted that judicial jurisprudence evolved the creamy layer principle strictly within the framework of OBC reservations. Consequently, this concept cannot be automatically extended or transplanted onto SC and ST quotas. The government pointed out that these communities have endured long-standing social marginalization, untouchability, and geographical isolation, factors that cannot be measured or remedied by income metrics alone.

## Petitions Demand Sub-Classification and Executive Domain Concerns
The Centre's detailed affidavit came in response to a batch of public interest litigation petitions filed by Senior Advocate Rama Shankar Prajapati, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, Samta Andolan Samiti, and several other petitioners. The petitioners urged the court to issue directions for implementing income-based prioritization and sub-classification within the SC, ST, OBC, and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) groups, aiming to channel reservation benefits primarily to the most financially vulnerable individuals within these categories.

Pushing back against this demand, the government submitted that formulating and tweaking reservation policies falls squarely within the administrative and legislative mandate of the executive and Parliament. Under Article 32 of the Constitution, the judiciary cannot issue writs directing the government to frame a specific policy or redesign established welfare frameworks, as policy design remains an executive prerogative.

## Constitutional Mandate, Committees, and Legal Process
Addressing the underlying legal structure, the Centre emphasized that lists of SC, ST, and socially and educationally backward classes notified under Articles 341, 342, and 342A of the Constitution cannot be modified strictly on monetary criteria. The identification of these beneficiary groups has historically followed a rigorous, multi-layered process incorporating the recommendations of landmark commissions, such as the Kaka Kalelkar Commission and the Mandal Commission, alongside parliamentary legislation and binding court decisions.

The affidavit clarified that while economic backwardness may serve as a relevant consideration in policy formulation, it cannot act as the sole benchmark for SC and ST categories. The quotas guaranteed to these sections account for systemic social prejudice, historical exclusion, and deep-rooted discrimination that extend far beyond mere financial hardship.

## Parliamentary Supremacy and Historical Precedents
Citing Articles 341(2) and 342(2) of the Constitution, the government reiterated that only Parliament holds the authority to amend or alter the Presidential lists notifying Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Neither executive notifications nor judicial mandates can bypass this explicitly defined constitutional process.

To substantiate its legal position, the central government cited four landmark Supreme Court rulings

- **Indra Sawhney Case (1992):** Established the creamy layer doctrine, limiting its applicability strictly to OBC reservations.
- **EV Chinnaiah Case (2005):** Settled that any exclusion or modification regarding the SC list remains the exclusive privilege of Parliament.
- **M Nagaraj Case (2006):** Defined parameters regarding reservation in promotions and quantifiable data.
- **Ashok Kumar Thakur Case (2008):** Confirmed that the creamy layer principle does not automatically apply to SC and ST categories.

Concluding its submissions, the government urged the court to respect constitutional boundaries, affirming that any overhaul of reservation policy must remain with the legislature.

## What this means for you
The existing reservation framework for SC, ST, and OBC categories will continue without income-based restrictions.

- **Across India:** The central government's affidavit ensures that social and educational backwardness remains the primary criteria for SC and ST quotas without instant administrative income shifts.
- **For Beneficiaries:** The creamy layer exclusion principle will not automatically apply to SC and ST groups, preserving their current access to affirmative action benefits.

## Questions & Answers

### 1. What stand did the Centre take in the Supreme Court regarding the creamy layer?
The central government stated in its affidavit that the creamy layer principle cannot be applied to SC and ST categories.

### 2. Can reservations be altered based solely on income criteria?
No, the government affirmed that quotas are rooted in historical, social, and educational backwardness, not purely on economic standing.

### 3. Who holds the authority to amend the SC and ST notification lists?
Under Articles 341(2) and 342(2) of the Constitution, only Parliament possesses the power to modify the notified lists of SCs and STs.

### 4. What did the government say regarding judicial intervention under Article 32?
The Centre stated that policy formulation belongs to the executive and legislature, and courts cannot direct the government to frame specific policies under Article 32.

### 5. Which major Supreme Court judgments were cited by the government?
The Centre cited the landmark Indra Sawhney (1992), EV Chinnaiah (2005), M Nagaraj (2006), and Ashok Kumar Thakur (2008) judgments.

---
_TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.. Machine-readable view; canonical HTML at the URL above._