Creamy Layer in SC/ST Quota: Supreme Court Grants 6 Weeks to Centre, States to Respond

The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vijay Bishnoi took on record multiple intervention applications, including one filed by the All India SC/ST Employees of the Railways opposing the plea.

Allowing the impleadment, the CJI remarked that the Court would require full details of the members represented, while expressing surprise that even Class III and Class IV employees had come forward to oppose the petition.

“We are amazed that even Class 3 and Class 4 employees are opposing this,” the CJI observed while permitting the intervention.

The petition was argued by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who contended that the original intent behind reservations for SC/ST communities was to benefit the poorest among them. Referring to Constituent Assembly debates, Upadhyay submitted that the policy was never meant to extend benefits to the children of politically powerful individuals or ministers.

“Cabinet ministers, five-time ministers, the Constituent Assembly debates are clear. It was meant for the very poor persons, not the son of a minister,” he argued.

However, the Bench made it clear that no substantive adjudication was being undertaken at this stage. “Today, we are not hearing anything on merits,” the CJI stated, adding that the issue involved significant policy considerations.

The Court emphasized the need to hear all stakeholders before proceeding further. “We would like to have the opinion of every stakeholder. These are also policy matters,” the Bench said.

All intervention applications were formally allowed. Counsel appearing for the Union of India sought time to file a detailed response, which was granted. The Court directed the Union government to file its counter affidavit within six weeks. State governments were also directed to file their respective responses within the same timeframe.

The plea seeks to implement the exclusion in order to ensure that benefits reach the genuinely disadvantaged sections and to uphold the constitutional mandate of justice, equality, fraternity, administrative efficiency, and national unity.

"Reservation under the Constitution was conceived as a remedial and compensatory measure to address historical injustice, social exclusion, and structural inequality suffered by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Constituent Assembly Debates clearly demonstrate that reservation was never intended to be a permanent or unconditional entitlement. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar repeatedly stated that reservation is not a privilege but a remedy for injustice created by the social system and that equality does not mean identical treatment of unequal. Late Sh. Jaipal Singh and V.I. Muniswamy Pillai emphasized that reservation was meant to uplift those who were backward in social, educational, and economic terms and not those who had already overcome such disadvantages," the plea states.

The writ petition filed through AOR Ashwani Kumar Dubey submits that the continued non-exclusion of the creamy layer has serious national consequences, as it fosters resentment between reserved and non-reserved categories and concentrates power and opportunity in the hands of a small elite section within SC/ST communities.

"This weakens public faith in constitutional governance, threatens fraternity, and undermines administrative efficiency, which the Constitution expressly seeks to protect. Socially, the absence of creamy layer exclusion has resulted in internal stratification within SC/ST communities, creating a “class within a class.” Advanced families repeatedly corner reservation benefits, while the most backward and first-generation beneficiaries remain excluded. This perpetuates inequality within the reserved categories, deepens social stigma, and defeats the very purpose of social justice. Economically, reservation without creamy layer exclusion leads to misallocation of scarce public resources," it adds.

The plea also relies on a recent Supreme Court judgment of State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024), wherein a Constitution Bench authoritatively held that Scheduled Castes are not homogeneous and that sub-classification is constitutionally permissible to ensure equitable distribution of reservation benefits. Justice Pankaj Mithal in the said judgment observed that reservation must evolve, should ordinarily be confined to the first generation, and must be subject to periodic reassessment to exclude those who have already achieved parity.

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vijay Bishnoi

Hearing Date: January 15, 2026