The Supreme Court on Thursday highlighted the sensitivity surrounding the issue of carving out a creamy layer among Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), and sought a formal response from the Union government before proceeding further. The court emphasized that the matter touches upon both constitutional protections and socio-economic realities, requiring inputs from all possible stakeholders before any judicial intervention.

The issue came up for consideration through two public interest litigations (PILs)—one filed by individuals belonging to the SC and Other Backward Classes (OBC) communities, and another by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vijay Bishnoi, observed, “This is a sensitive issue. We don’t know as per law, what should happen in this matter,” and directed that the Centre provide its views on the subject within six weeks.

The bench clarified that this is not a matter to be decided routinely. It wants to assess the perspectives of all affected stakeholders and the extent to which courts can interfere in defining or modifying the creamy layer within SC/ST reservations. The court had issued a notice to the Centre on one of the petitions in August 2025, but no response had been received.

In addition to the government’s inputs, several applications were filed by associations representing SC/ST workers opposing the PILs. The court allowed these applications while also seeking details regarding the composition and representation of such associations. Senior advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, representing the SC/ST Railway Employees Association, informed the bench that the association has 3,00,000 members, primarily Class 3 and Class 4 employees. The association opposes the PIL, arguing that it directly affects the welfare and constitutional rights of the SC/ST community, and that centuries of historical discrimination and social disadvantage cannot be rectified in a single generation.

The association emphasized that economic criteria alone cannot determine SC/ST eligibility, as these communities are identified primarily based on their historical social and educational backwardness. Tiwari told the court, “The benefits of reservation are intended to correct historical social injustices and cannot be solely determined on the basis of income or economic advancement.”

The Supreme Court clarified that its intent is not to dilute the reservation system for SC/STs, which was established thoughtfully to address historical disadvantages. However, it acknowledged the need to identify parameters for a creamy layer within these communities. The bench noted that individuals in higher positions, or who are socially and economically advantaged, might be considered part of the creamy layer, while those working in lower-income categories, such as Class 3 and Class 4 positions, should not be excluded from reservation benefits.

During the proceedings, Upadhyay, one of the petitioners, presented data indicating that billionaires, politicians, and other socially influential persons continue to benefit from reservation provisions, undermining the intended purpose of affirmative action. He argued that reservations should be prioritised for the most disadvantaged within SC/ST communities, ensuring that the benefits reach those who genuinely need them.

Similarly, the petition by Ramashankar Prajapathi highlighted economic disparities within SC/ST groups, noting that a small fraction of families have gained access to quality education, stable employment, and economic mobility, while the majority remain deprived. The PIL advocated for an income-based prioritisation mechanism within SC/ST reservations to ensure equitable distribution of opportunities for the most disadvantaged individuals in these communities.

The bench also referred to the State of Punjab v Davinder Singh case, decided by a seven-judge Constitution bench in August 2024, which held by a 6:1 majority that the Constitution permits sub-classification within SCs for reservation purposes. This precedent indicates that subclassification of Scheduled Castes, if done carefully, is constitutionally permissible, providing a legal framework for considering the introduction of a creamy layer.

Acknowledging the complex socio-economic and legal dimensions, the Supreme Court has now posted the matter for hearing after six weeks, allowing the Centre to submit its response and provide clarity on how the creamy layer concept could be applied to SC/ST communities.

The proceedings underline the delicate balance the court must maintain between protecting the historical rights and welfare of SC/ST communities and ensuring that reservation benefits are not monopolized by economically or socially advantaged individuals. With inputs from the government, community associations, and data presented by petitioners, the apex court aims to formulate a framework that is both constitutionally sound and socially equitable.

The decision will have far-reaching implications, potentially guiding future policies on reservation, income thresholds, and affirmative action for SC/ST communities across India. For now, all eyes are on the Centre’s response, which will help the Supreme Court chart the way forward in this highly sensitive and historically significant issue.