Government, Opposition Reject Supreme Court Verdict

Newsreel Asia Insight #307
August 12, 2024

The Supreme Court’s recent verdict on the exclusion of the “creamy layer” from Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) reservations has sparked controversy, with both the governing and opposition parties rightly expressing firm disagreement.

On Aug. 1, a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court allowed for the sub-classification of SCs and STs by states, aiming to provide benefits to those within these communities who are genuinely in need, as reported by The Indian Express.

However, the contentious part of the verdict was the suggestion by four judges to apply the “creamy layer” principle to the SC/ST reservations, a move not currently supported by the Constitution as crafted by B. R. Ambedkar. The creamy layer principle refers to a criterion used to exclude the wealthier and more educated members of backward classes from availing benefits of affirmative action policies in India. This principle, although arguably misguided, aims to ensure that reservation benefits are extended solely to the most economically and socially disadvantaged members within these communities.

Following the Supreme Court’s judgment, the Union Cabinet, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), quickly declared its opposition to the creamy layer exclusion, according to the Express.

Simultaneously, the Congress Party vehemently opposed concept. Party President Mallikarjun Kharge criticised the Court’s lack of serious consideration on the issue, citing ongoing societal challenges like untouchability that, according to him, justify the continuation of unmodified reservations. He explained that the application of a creamy layer would disproportionately harm the SC/ST communities, who are already underrepresented in sectors like government employment and the judiciary, as reported by The Print.

The creamy layer principle, originally applied to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) to prevent economically advanced individuals from accessing reservations, may not suitably apply to SCs and STs, who have endured systemic oppression and exclusion rooted in caste-based untouchability and tribal isolation, which are not merely economic but deeply social and cultural. The creamy layer principle would mistakenly equate economic progress with complete social upliftment.

The creamy layer criterion would also limit the reach of affirmative actions meant to rectify historical injustices. For many in these communities, even those who might be considered “creamy layer,” the stigma of caste and tribe does not vanish with economic advancement. Discrimination in higher education and elite professional spaces continues to persist, despite nominal economic improvements.

Moreover, the practical implications of defining and enforcing a creamy layer cut-off within the SCs and STs pose significant challenges. The socioeconomic diversity within these groups is vast, and a uniform economic threshold could be either too high or too low, missing the nuanced realities of different sub-castes and tribes across various regions. This one-size-fits-all approach could lead to further intra-community disparities, where the slightly better-off are penalised, yet still disadvantaged compared to the general population.

The potential administrative and bureaucratic complexities in assessing and verifying the creamy layer status could also lead to inefficiencies and corruption, ultimately diluting the effectiveness of reservation policies intended to empower the SC/ST communities.

Kharge rightly pointed to the insufficient representation of SCs in higher judiciary and bureaucracy as evidence of the ongoing need for comprehensive reservation policies.