The Centre informed the Supreme Court that the creamy layer principle applies only to OBCs and cannot be extended to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, opposing pleas for income-based sub-quotas within reserved categories

The Union government has opposed a batch of petitions before the Supreme Court seeking the creation of an income-based sub-quota within the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation framework, contending that the constitutional scheme of reservation is rooted in historical and social disadvantage and cannot be redesigned solely on the basis of economic criteria.

In a detailed counter affidavit filed through the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, the Centre argued that the petitions seek judicial directions to restructure India's reservation policy, a matter that falls exclusively within the domain of the legislature and the executive and is beyond the scope of judicial review under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The affidavit has been filed in response to a batch of petitions instituted by Ramashankar Prajapati, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, Samta Andolan Samiti and others. The petitioners have sought directions to introduce income-based preferences within SC, ST, OBC and EWS reservations and to create sub-classifications so that economically weaker persons within these categories receive priority in the distribution of reservation benefits.

Centre Rejects income as sole basis for Reservation

The Centre maintained that the constitutional framework governing SCs, STs and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) does not permit alteration of the notified categories merely on the basis of income.

According to the affidavit, the identification of SCs, STs and SEBCs has evolved through constitutional provisions, recommendations of expert commissions such as the Kaka Kalelkar and Mandal Commissions, parliamentary enactments and judicial precedents. While economic disadvantage may be one of the relevant considerations in identifying backward classes, it is neither the sole nor the determinative criterion, particularly in the case of SCs and STs whose inclusion is based on centuries of untouchability, social exclusion, discrimination and geographical isolation.

The government further argued that Parliament alone possesses the constitutional authority under Articles 341(2) and 342(2) to amend the Presidential Lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Consequently, neither the executive nor the judiciary can alter the constitutional scheme by directing inclusion or exclusion based solely on income.

Centre Opposes Extending Creamy layer Principles to SCs and STs

A significant aspect of the Centre's affidavit concerns the applicability of the creamy layer doctrine to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The government categorically submitted that the creamy layer principle has never been recognised by the Supreme Court as a basis for excluding members of SCs and STs from reservation solely because of economic advancement. It argued that extending the doctrine beyond OBCs would fundamentally alter the constitutional basis on which reservations for SCs and STs rest.

Relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Centre submitted that the creamy layer principle was evolved only in the context of reservations for Other Backward Classes.

The affidavit further relied upon Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) to contend that the Supreme Court had expressly clarified that the creamy layer doctrine does not automatically apply to SCs and STs.

Placing reliance on E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005), the Centre argued that exclusion from the Scheduled Caste list can be effected only by Parliament and not through executive or judicial action. It also referred to M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) to submit that the judgment did not hold that the creamy layer principle applies to SCs and STs.

According to the Centre, excluding members of SCs and STs from reservation purely because of economic advancement would dilute the concept of social backwardness that forms the constitutional foundation of reservations for these communities.

Means tests already use in Welfare Schemes

While resisting income-based reservations, the Centre pointed out that several welfare schemes for SCs, STs and OBCs outside the reservation framework already incorporate income limits and means tests to ensure benefits reach the most deserving beneficiaries.

However, it submitted that introducing income-based preferences within reservation would require comprehensive empirical studies assessing the socio-economic profile of beneficiaries across reserved categories and could not be directed by the Supreme Court in proceedings under Article 32.

Petitions termed 'Misconceived'

Describing the petitions as "misconceived", the Union government argued that they do not disclose any enforceable constitutional or fundamental right requiring judicial intervention. Instead, they seek directions compelling the government to frame a particular policy, which falls outside the scope of the Court's writ jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Centre has urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the petitions.

The batch of petitions is presently scheduled to be heard on August 18.

Background of the Case

In August 2025, the Court had issued notice in the plea seeking framing of policies for a more equitable and just system of reservation in government employment and educational opportunities.

The petition calls for an urgent need to integrate economic criteria into the reservation policy to ensure that benefits are conferred upon those who genuinely require state support. "This reform proposal does not seek to abolish or undermine caste-based reservations but rather to refine them to serve their intended purpose more effectively. By introducing an income-based prioritisation mechanism within SC, ST reservations, the proposed framework aims to prioritise opportunities for the most disadvantaged individuals amongst the SC-ST communities. The necessity of such an approach stems from the fact that over the past 75 years, reservations have disproportionately benefited a select few within the reserved categories, creating intra-community economic disparities and failing to achieve holistic upliftment...", the plea adds.

Arguing that economic realities within SC, ST and OBC groups have significantly changed over time, the Supreme Court has been told that a small percentage of families within these communities have gained access to quality education, stable employment and economic mobility, thereby securing a generational advantage and in contrast, a vast majority within SC, ST and OBC groups continue to struggle with financial hardships and lack of access to essential resources such as quality education, healthcare and employment opportunities.

It is submitted that the existing system, by failing to differentiate between the well-off and the economically deprived within these communities, has inadvertently perpetuated inequalities and hindered the true objectives of affirmative action.

"The lack of an economic criteria within SC/ST reservations has enabled certain families to monopolise benefits over generations, while those in need struggle to break free from the cycle of poverty. Despite the implementation of reservations for over seven decades, many individuals from SC/ST backgrounds continue to face severe economic hardships. The persistence of poverty within these communities indicates that affirmative action in its current form is insufficient to facilitate socio economic upliftment without targeted economic interventions. A small but influential section of SC/ST families has successfully leveraged reservations to attain high-ranking government positions, financial stability and quality education. This has led to intra-community economic stratification, where the relatively affluent continue to benefit from reservations at the expense of those who remain in financial distress", the plea states.

Court has been told that a system similar to the ‘creamy layer’ concept in OBC reservations should be introduced for SC/ST reservations which would ensure that only the genuinely disadvantaged sections of these communities continue to receive state support.

"A mechanism should be established to conduct annual assessments of the economic progress of families availing reservation benefits. This would ensure that individuals who have attained economic stability do not continue to benefit from reservations at the expense of those in greater need. By implementing periodic reviews, the system can be dynamically adjusted to reflect changing economic realities within SC/ST communities. A two-tier reservation system should be implemented within SC/ST categories, prioritising individuals from economically weaker sections before extending benefits to those who are relatively well-off", the petition adds.

In addition to restructuring the reservation framework, the petition submits that additional measures must be taken to support the most marginalised individuals within SC/ST communities.

On the basis that the framers of the Constitution envisioned reservations as a temporary measure to uplift marginalised communities not as a permanent entitlement for select groups within these communities, the plea has said by incorporating an economic threshold within reservations, the policy would align with the broader constitutional mandate of creating an egalitarian society.

Case Title: Ramashankar Prajapati & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Affidavit By: Union of India 

Affidavit Date: June 16, 2026

Tags: