Although the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) are often spoken of together, they are distinct social groups identified through very different criteria. SCs have historically been subjected to untouchability, which led to social, educational, and economic backwardness. STs, on the other hand, are communities that traditionally lived in remote and inaccessible hilly or forested areas, maintaining unique traditions, dialects, and customs. Their marginalization has often been shaped by geographical isolation, primitive traits, economic deprivation, and educational disadvantage.
India’s reservation system was created to address centuries of discrimination and deprivation faced by these groups, offering opportunities in higher education, government jobs, and political representation. In the landmark Indra Sawhney case (1992), Justice P.B. Sawant had observed that the creamy layer principle was irrelevant for SCs and STs because their backwardness was rooted not merely in economic conditions but also in deep-seated social discrimination. Yet, subsequent judicial developments have reopened this question.
In September 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the creamy layer principle would apply to SCs and STs. Later, in August 2024, a seven-judge Constitution Bench in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh upheld the power of state governments to sub-classify SCs and STs for the purpose of reservations, with a majority of the judges arguing that real equality required excluding the more advanced sections of these communities from reservation benefits. Justice B.R. Gavai reiterated this position in January 2025, while hearing a petition demanding cessation of benefits to the creamy layer within SCs and STs. He stressed that, while the judiciary had expressed its view, it was for the legislature and executive to decide whether individuals already empowered should continue to benefit from reservations.
The debate resurfaced again in August 2025, when the Supreme Court decided to examine a petition seeking a system akin to the creamy layer principle used for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The petition argued that reservation benefits disproportionately favored better-off groups within SCs and STs while the most deprived remained trapped in extreme poverty. A Bench led by Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Union government and recommended a cautious approach, acknowledging the sensitivity of the issue.
The concept of creamy layer itself is not new. First proposed by the Sattanathan Commission in 1971 and later endorsed by the Justice Ram Nandan Committee in 1993, it was introduced in the Indra Sawhney judgment of 1992 specifically for OBCs. It excluded the children of high-ranking officials, professionals, and those with significant incomes from reservation benefits. The income ceiling, originally set at ₹1 lakh per year in 1993, has been revised upward over time and currently stands at ₹8 lakh. However, SCs and STs were originally exempted from this classification, as their disadvantage was understood to stem from more than income inequality.
Determining creamy layer criteria for SCs and STs is far more complex. A simple income ceiling is unlikely to reflect the unique disadvantages these groups face. Social, educational, and historical discrimination continues to affect SCs, while STs often remain marginalized due to ecological and geographical isolation. At the same time, it is undeniable that some households within these groups have benefited from affirmative action and progressed significantly, enabling their children to compete on more equal terms.
A possible way forward may involve exempting certain sub-groups from being classified as creamy layer for the next 15–20 years. Among SCs, this could include landless agricultural laborers, small farmers, rural artisans such as leather workers and weavers, manual scavengers, migrant laborers, construction workers, and children of freed bonded laborers. Among STs, particularly vulnerable tribal groups (PVTGs), forest dwellers, pastoralists, displaced families, and landless laborers might also be excluded. Once these categories are protected, the income-based criteria already applied to OBCs, with necessary adjustments, could gradually be extended to SCs and STs as well.
The debate over the creamy layer in SCs and STs is thus not merely about income ceilings or legal rulings. It is about striking a balance between acknowledging real progress made by some sections and ensuring that the most marginalized within these communities are not left behind. For such a policy to succeed, it must be based on empirical data, broad consensus, and sensitivity to the complex realities of caste and tribal disadvantage.
---
Prof. Prasad was associated with the National Institute of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj (NIRDPR), Hyderabad
Comments