Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, who recently retired after serving a brief tenure from May to November 2025, has revealed that he faced widespread criticism from members of his own community for his progressive stance on the application of the “creamy layer” principle to Scheduled Caste (SC) reservations. Gavai, the second Dalit to hold the country’s highest judicial office after Justice KG Balakrishnan, spoke at length during a lecture at Mumbai University on Saturday on the theme, “Role of Affirmative Action in Promoting Equal Opportunity,” where he articulated his vision for social and economic justice in India.

The creamy layer concept, originally applied to Other Backward Classes (OBCs), excludes individuals from reservation benefits if they surpass a certain income threshold. For OBCs, the benchmark currently stands at ₹8 lakh per annum. Gavai, in a landmark judgment as part of the Supreme Court bench in August 2024, extended the logic of this principle to SCs and Scheduled Tribes (STs), a move that challenged decades of convention and elicited strong reactions from sections of his own community.

“I have been widely criticised for this,” Gavai admitted during his lecture. He recounted how some accused him of hypocrisy, arguing that he had himself benefited from reservation to rise to the position of a Supreme Court judge, yet he was advocating for the exclusion of economically advanced members of backward communities from quota benefits. Gavai clarified that these critics overlooked the fact that constitutional positions such as High Court or Supreme Court judges do not come under reservation, a nuance often missed in public discourse.

Reflecting on his travels across India and abroad, Gavai highlighted the remarkable progress achieved by members of the SC community over recent decades. “I have seen many people belonging to the Scheduled Castes become chief secretaries, directors general of police, ambassadors, and high commissioners,” he observed. He argued that applying the same reservation yardstick uniformly to the children of these accomplished professionals and the children of laborers who studied in rural schools fails to meet the equality test enshrined in the Constitution.

During the lecture, delivered on the occasion of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s death anniversary, Gavai paid tribute to the architect of the Indian Constitution and the principal champion of affirmative action. He emphasized that Ambedkar’s vision for social justice was not merely formal but substantive, aiming to create genuine opportunities for the historically disadvantaged. “Babasaheb likened affirmative action to providing a cycle to someone who is lagging behind. If a person is at the tenth kilometre and someone else is at zero, the person at zero should be given a cycle to reach the tenth kilometre faster, so that thereafter, they can walk along together,” Gavai explained.

He added, “Did he (Ambedkar) intend that the person who has been given the cycle should stop using it and be held back, while those at zero continue to lag behind? In my view, that was never the vision of social and economic justice as Babasaheb conceived it.” Gavai underlined that affirmative action has played a positive role over the past 75 years but argued for a nuanced approach that recognizes disparities within the SC/ST communities themselves.

The Supreme Court judgment in which Gavai’s opinion featured was groundbreaking. Traditionally, the creamy layer principle had been confined to OBCs, following the nine-judge bench decision in the Indra Sawhney case of 1992. That ruling explicitly stated that the concept of income-based exclusion had no relevance for SCs and STs. However, Gavai questioned the rationale behind this differentiation. “When the nine-judge bench held that such a test advances equality for OBCs, why should it not also apply to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes?” he argued.

Gavai’s concurring opinion formed part of a broader ruling that affirmed the need for sub-classification within SC/ST groups to ensure that affirmative action benefits reach those who are most in need. His 281-page judgment provided a detailed analysis of socio-economic disparities within these communities, highlighting the differences between urban and rural populations. He emphasized that treating these diverse groups as equal under the reservation policy risks undermining the constitutional principle of equality.

The judgment received support from then CJI Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justices Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, signaling a judicial consensus on the necessity of a more refined approach to reservation. However, implementation of this principle requires further legislative and executive action, as governments must frame rules and thresholds to operationalize the exclusion of the creamy layer within SC/ST communities.

In his lecture, Gavai addressed the criticism from within his community with candid introspection. “Many accused me of taking the benefits of reservation myself and then denying similar benefits to those who have advanced economically. They did not realize that constitutional offices do not have reservations,” he said. By drawing this distinction, Gavai highlighted the need to consider socio-economic advancement alongside historical disadvantage when determining eligibility for quota benefits.

Gavai’s remarks also emphasized the importance of contextualizing affirmative action in contemporary India. He pointed out that mere formal equality is insufficient if it does not address the stark disparities between different sections of historically marginalized communities. According to him, applying uniform reservation policies without considering intra-community differences perpetuates inequities rather than resolving them.

The former CJI’s reflections carry broader implications for public policy and social reform. They invite policymakers, legal scholars, and civil society to rethink the frameworks of reservation in India, particularly in light of rising disparities within backward communities. Gavai’s judgment represents a significant step toward aligning reservation policies with the original constitutional vision of social justice, as articulated by Ambedkar, by ensuring that affirmative action benefits those who continue to face genuine economic and social disadvantages.

Gavai’s lecture concluded with a call to preserve the essence of Ambedkar’s vision. He argued that social and economic justice should be substantive, not merely symbolic, and that affirmative action should serve as a tool to bring the historically disadvantaged to a level playing field with those who have already achieved socio-economic mobility. His stance underscores a philosophical and practical shift in thinking about reservations, one that balances historical redress with contemporary equity.

In sum, Justice BR Gavai’s advocacy for the application of the creamy layer principle to SC/ST reservations has sparked debate, particularly within his own community. While some have criticized him for allegedly questioning the very system that enabled his rise, Gavai has framed his position as a continuation of Ambedkar’s vision—one that seeks to ensure genuine equality and opportunity for all, particularly the most disadvantaged within marginalized communities. His legal reasoning, public reflections, and scholarly engagement collectively signal a nuanced approach to affirmative action, emphasizing fairness, equity, and the long-term goal of social justice.

As India continues to navigate the complex landscape of reservation policies, Gavai’s perspectives serve as a critical touchstone, reminding policymakers and citizens alike that the ultimate goal of affirmative action is not merely to redistribute opportunities, but to foster true social and economic inclusion for those historically left behind.