The central government submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court opposing the exclusion of the 'creamy layer' from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe quotas.
The Centre argued that social prejudice and discrimination against SC and ST communities are not solely based on economic conditions.
The government asserted that only Parliament holds the exclusive constitutional mandate under Articles 341 and 342 to alter reservation lists.
Centre Opposes SC ST Creamy Layer Exclusion in Supreme Court
The central government has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court opposing the 'creamy layer' exclusion for SC and ST quotas, stating that only Parliament has the authority to alter reservation lists.
Summary
The central government has submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court objecting to the 'creamy layer' exclusion principle for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities regarding employment and academic quotas. The administration informed the apex court that social prejudice extends beyond mere financial status.
"Keeping the broader concept of equality in view, discrimination against SC, ST and OBC/SEBC communities do not happen only based on economic conditions. The system of reservation aims to provide fair opportunities, reduce economic disparities, and foster diversity in governance and academia by addressing historical marginalisation," the government stated.
This legal filing arrives almost 12 months after the Supreme Court requested a reply on August 11, 2025. Two citizens, representing the SC and OBC categories respectively, had initiated the underlying public interest litigation.
Parliament Must Decide
Only the legislature holds the constitutional mandate to alter quota parameters. The government stated, "Modification of reservation policy, particularly to introduce income-based preferences within reserved categories, should be preceded by a holistic review and thorough empirical study, including socio-economic data of reserved category beneficiaries."
Articles 341(1) and 342 grant Parliament exclusive authority to adjust SC and ST classifications. Consequently, state administrations, judicial bodies and independent tribunals lack the jurisdiction to amend these specific schedules.
This legislative exclusivity also covers the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC). The administration informed the court that the Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) Act, 2018, established identical provisions for SEBC designations.
Existing Means Tests
A seven-judge Supreme Court bench delivered a landmark ruling on August 1, 2024. It authorised states to implement internal sub-categories within SC groups based on socio-economic backwardness and the degree of under-representation in government jobs. This was intended to ensure that the larger pie of the 15% quota goes to the most backward.
The verdict directed state authorities to formulate standards excluding affluent members from accessing quota privileges.
However, the central administration highlighted an existing operational distinction. Most active welfare and development programmes targeting SC, ST and SEBC populations currently implement financial evaluations.
Advertisement
These active means tests ensure resources reach genuinely disadvantaged individuals. This structural approach differs fundamentally from the unconditional criteria governing public sector employment and university admissions quotas.
Published At: