Supreme Court verdict seeks policy to define ‘creamy layer’ in SC/ST quota
Justice Gavai’s concurring opinion delved into the contentious issue of the “creamy layer” and its exclusion from the benefits of affirmative action.
In a forward-looking judgment, justice BR Gavai on Thursday articulated the need for the exclusion of the “creamy layer” within the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) from the benefits of reservation policies so as to ensure that the benefits of affirmative action reach those who are genuinely in need, rather than those who have already transcended their social disadvantages.

Justice Gavai’s concurring opinion, delivered as part of a broader ruling that affirmed sub-classification within the SC/STs, delved into the contentious issue of the “creamy layer” and its exclusion from the benefits of affirmative action.
Historically, the Supreme Court in the nine-judge bench decision in the Indra Sawhney case (1992) had confined this principle to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs), explicitly stating that it had “no relevance in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.” However, Justice Gavai challenged this long-held position, arguing that it is time to re-evaluate the exclusion of the creamy layer from SC/ST reservations in light of contemporary realities.
“When the nine-judge bench in Indra Sawhney held that applicability of such a test insofar as Other Backward Classes are concerned would advance equality as enshrined in the Constitution, then why such a test should not also be made applicable to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes,” he wondered.
Creamy layer refers to people who are above a certain income bracket -- ₹8 lakh per annum for OBCs -- and thus excluded from quota benefits.
Read more: Creamy layer among SCs, STs must be excluded from quota benefits: Supreme Court
Justice Gavai drew on the reasoning from Indra Sawhney, where justice Jeevan Reddy had emphasised that if some members of a backward class advance significantly in terms of social, economic or educational status, they no longer share the same level of disadvantage as the rest of the group. In such cases, the connecting thread between them and the remaining class snaps, making them “misfits” in the class, justice Reddy had held while adding that excluding these advanced members would actually benefit the truly backward.
This reasoning, according to justice Gavai, was equally applicable to SC/STs, especially given the disparities within these communities. “By judicial interpretation, the equality enshrined in the trinity of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution has been considered to be equal treatment among equals and unequal treatment among unequals. The question that will have to be posed is, whether equal treatment to unequals in the category of Scheduled Castes would advance the constitutional objective of equality or would thwart it? Can a child of IAS/IPS or Civil Service Officers be equated with a child of a disadvantaged member belonging to Scheduled Castes, studying in a Gram Panchayat/Zilla Parishad school in a village?” he asked.
Read more: Quota hike: Bihar govt keeps fingers crossed despite SC refusing to stay HC order
“It is logical that in such a situation, his children are not given the benefit of reservation. By giving them the benefit of reservation, other disadvantaged members of that backward class may be deprived of that benefit,” the judge held. Their continued inclusion in the reservation pool, he maintained, could undermine the very purpose of affirmative action.
The judge’s opinion was supported by CJI Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, and justices Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra and Satish Chandra Sharma.
Justice Gavai also addressed the argument that the advancement of a few members does not negate the backwardness of the entire caste or tribe - an idea encapsulated in the saying “one swallow doesn’t make the summer.”
While acknowledging that clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution aims at addressing group backwardness, the judge underlined that excluding the socially advanced members would better serve the purpose and object of this provision. By doing so, he held, reservations would be more effectively targeted at those who are truly in need, thereby fulfilling the constitutional mandate of equality.
Justice Gavai, in his 281-page judgment, analysed the stark disparities within SC/ST communities, particularly between urban and rural populations, drawing a contrast between the educational opportunities available to children of SC/ST members in urban areas, who may attend prestigious schools and receive additional coaching, and those in rural areas who may only have access to basic education. The judge asserted that treating these two groups as equals under the reservation policy would “obliterate the equality principle enshrined in the Constitution.”
“Putting the children of the parents from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who on account of benefit of reservation have reached a high position and ceased to be socially, economically and educationally backward and the children of parents doing manual work in the villages in the same category would defeat the constitutional mandate,” justice Gavai held.
The judge underscored the need for the creamy layer principle to ensure that the benefits of affirmative action reach those who are genuinely in need, rather than those who have already transcended their social disadvantages.
Acknowledging the complexities involved in implementing the creamy layer principle for SC/STs, justice Gavai noted that the criteria for exclusion may need to differ from those applied to OBCs, given the unique historical and social context of these communities.
“If a person from such a category, by bagging the benefit of reservation achieved a position of a peon or maybe a sweeper, he would continue to belong to a socially, economically and educationally backward class. At the same time, the people from this category, who after having availed the benefits of reservation have reached the high echelons in life cannot be considered to be socially, economically and educationally backward so as to continue availing the benefit of affirmative action. They have already reached a stage where on their own accord they should walk out of the special provisions and give way to the deserving and needy,” said the judge, upholding the previous five-judge bench judgments which held that the creamy layer test is applicable to SC/STs.
Justice Gavai’s judgment also firmly rejected the argument that sub-classification could lead to reservations being manipulated for political purposes, noting that the safeguards within the constitutional framework and judicial oversight ensure that any such classifications must be reasonable and justifiable.
Addressing the opposition to sub-classification from within the SC/STs, the judge drew an analogy. He likened the attitude of those opposing sub-classification to that of individuals who, having struggled to secure a place within the general compartment of a train, now seek to block others from entering. Justice Gavai noted that the resistance from those enjoying substantial reservations mirrors the historical oppression they themselves faced from higher castes. By opposing the extension of benefits to the more disadvantaged sub-groups, they inadvertently perpetuate the same exclusionary practices that kept their own communities marginalised for centuries, lamented the judge.
Justice Gavai concluded by urging the states to develop a policy that identifies the creamy layer within SC/STs and excludes them from affirmative action benefits. “In my view, only this and this alone can achieve the real equality as enshrined under the Constitution,” he underscored.
