The Court said that while dealing with reservations, the concept of "creamylayer" becomes important as thecentre has maintained that it was applicable to only Article 16 (4) and not Article 15 (5) of the Constitution.
While Article 16 (4) empowers the state to make provisions for reservations for any backward class not adequately represented in the government jobs,Article 15 (5) enables the state to provide quota for socially and educationally backward classes.
Observing that the concept of creamy layer cannot prima facie be considered to be irrelevant, the court said "it, therefore, needs no reiteration that the creamy layer rule is a necessary bargain between the competing ends of caste based reservations and the principle of secularism. It is a part of Constitutional scheme".
However, the Bench noted with pain, "Nowhere else in the world do castes, classes or communities queue up for the sake of gaining backwardstatus. Nowhere else in the world is there competition to assert backwardnessand then to claim we are more backward than you. This truth was recognised as anunhappy and disturbing situation in Indra Sawhney (Mandal) case".
Although the state, the Bench clarified, is constitutionally empowered to enactaffirmative action measures for backward classes, "differentiation orclassification for special preference must not be unduly unfair for the personsleft out of the favoured groups".