Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud has termed the Supreme Court's ruling on the "creamy layer" within Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) a milestone, emphasizing its potential to achieve "real equality". This ruling grants state governments the authority to sub-classify SCs and STs for reservation purposes, ensuring that the benefits of affirmative action reach the most marginalized within these communities.
On August 1, 2024, a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by CJI Chandrachud, upheld the validity of sub-classification within Scheduled Caste categories in a 6:1 majority, overruling the earlier decision in E.V. Chinnaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh (2004). The court dismissed petitions seeking a review of this judgment on October 4, 2024. The core of the debate revolved around whether SCs and STs constitute a homogenous group, with the majority ruling that empirical evidence indicates inequality even within these groups. CJI Chandrachud, writing for himself and Justice Manoj Misra, asserted that Article 341 does not create an integrated, homogenous class.
The concept of a "creamy layer" within SCs/STs refers to those individuals who are economically and socially advanced and, according to some judges, should be excluded from reservation benefits. Justice B.R. Gavai, with Justices Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal and Satish Chandra Sharma explicitly concurring, advocated for identifying and excluding this "creamy layer" to ensure that reservation benefits reach the truly deserving and needy within the SC/ST communities. Justice Gavai clarified that the criteria for assessing the 'creamy layer' for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be different from those applicable to Other Backward Castes.
However, the Union Cabinet, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has asserted that the Constitution, as framed by B.R. Ambedkar, does not include a provision for a creamy layer within the reservation system for SCs and STs. This divergence in opinion highlights the complexities and sensitivities surrounding the issue.
The Supreme Court's ruling emphasized that any sub-classification must be based on quantifiable data regarding the inadequacy of representation of certain sub-categories within state services. The Court clarified that while sub-categorization of castes is allowed, reservations cannot be allocated for each individual caste separately and that castes facing comparable levels of social backwardness should be grouped together for reservation purposes. CJI Chandrachud observed that states have often assessed representation numerically, by comparing the representation of the "class" in all services to the total population in the state. He rejected this numerical representation, holding that "inadequacy of representation" must be determined by assessing the representation of the "class" across various posts in the state, at both higher and lower levels.
While the Supreme Court has not explicitly defined the "creamy layer" within SCs/STs, the introduction of the concept is aimed at achieving "real equality". The court has not specified whether the "creamy layer" should be applicable after sub-classifying within SC/STs based on "inadequate representation" or whether the "creamy layer" itself is the criteria for sub-classification.
This ruling is a significant step towards ensuring equitable distribution of reservation benefits within SC/ST communities. By allowing sub-classification and considering the "creamy layer" concept, the Supreme Court has paved the way for a more nuanced and effective approach to affirmative action, addressing historical inequalities while ensuring that the most marginalized receive the support they need.
