The question of whether the creamy layer should be applied to Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) reservations is no longer merely a social debate but has reached the heart of constitutional law. Public interest litigations filed in the Supreme Court have demanded that economically and socially advanced families within the reserved categories be excluded from reservation benefits. However, in its affidavit in August 2026, the Central Government opposed the implementation of a creamy layer system similar to the OBC system to exclude relatively affluent individuals from SC/ST reservations.
The matter is further complicated by the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, which constitutionally recognized sub-classification within SC/ST categories, and Justice BR Gavai’s opinion advocated the application of the creamy layer principle to SCs and STs. However, the Central Government is now citing previous decisions and arguing that the OBC creamy layer principle cannot be directly applied to SCs and STs.
Separate public interest litigations have been filed in the Supreme Court demanding the implementation of the creamy layer principle in SC-ST reservations. The petition filed by Ramashankar Prajapati and others seeks income-based prioritization within all reserved categories, including SC, ST, OBC, and EWS.
On the other hand, the petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay specifically focuses on the implementation of the creamy layer principle in SC-ST reservations. The petition argues that continued reservation benefits for children from highly socially and economically advanced families could lead to the most disadvantaged being left behind.
The Supreme Court issued notice on Prajapati’s petition on August 11, 2025. Notices were issued to the Central and states on Upadhyay’s petition on January 12, 2026.
In fact, the basic idea of the creamy layer is that those within a backward class who have advanced sufficiently socially and economically can be excluded from the benefits of reservation. In the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment, the Supreme Court accepted the principle of excluding the creamy layer from reservation for OBCs. Now, similar calls for a creamy layer within SC and ST castes are being raised in society, so that those who have advanced within these castes can be excluded from the benefits of reservation. This debate is not only about setting an income limit, but also about determining the criteria by which the constitutional objective of SC and ST reservation should be measured.
The central government’s main argument is that the constitutional and social backgrounds of SCs, STs, and OBCs are not the same. Distinctive culture, geographical isolation, and historical backwardness are also important factors in community identity. In contrast, OBC identity is linked to various parameters of social, educational, and economic backwardness. The central government argues that discrimination against SCs and STs does not end simply with increased family income. Therefore, excluding a person from reservation based solely on income could undermine the constitutional objective.
Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution provide constitutional provisions relating to the lists of SCs and STs, respectively. The Center maintains that the power to include or exclude individuals from these lists generally rests with a law of Parliament. The government is arguing on this basis that courts or state governments cannot alter the lists on their own.
However, the question of the creamy layer technically creates a distinction between removing a caste or tribe from the list and denying reservation benefits. Justice Gavai’s 2024 opinion also made a significant distinction: excluding a community from the creamy layer does not amount to removing the community from the SC/ST list. This means that individuals may remain in their constitutional category, but different criteria may apply for a particular reservation benefit.
This point creates a significant legal conflict between the Center’s current argument and the 2024 judicial opinion. The final outcome will depend on how the Supreme Court interprets these constitutional provisions and previous decisions in the current petitions.
It is noteworthy that the Center has also raised the question of the jurisdiction of the judiciary and the legislature in this matter. The government states that formulating a reservation policy is a matter of broader policy and legislative processes. On the other hand, the petitioners are arguing for the actual benefits of reservation to reach the most disadvantaged and the constitutional principle of equality. Therefore, the Supreme Court faces not only the applicability of the creamy layer, but also the limits of judicial review and the constitutional limits of policymaking.
The most important question now is where the legal position lies between the Center’s latest affidavit and the judicial approach of 2024.
The Supreme Court has already sought an Action Taken Report from the Center on compliance with the Davinder Singh decision. On the other hand, the Center’s current stance is that there is no need to implement the creamy layer for SCs and STs and that the OBC model should not be directly applied here.
If the court issues a binding order on this issue, the government may be required to clarify the criteria, procedures, and constitutional basis.
At present, the Center’s affidavit alone does not automatically change the existing eligibility system for SC-ST reservation.
Similarly, it would not be appropriate to base its 2024 judicial opinion on the assumption that a specific income criterion for the creamy layer within SC-ST categories already applies.
The upcoming hearing could clarify the legal scope of this dispute and the direction of government action.