The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether the “creamy layer” principle should be implemented in SC and ST reservations. A PIL argues that allowing affluent SC/ST candidates to avail quota benefits violates equality and defeats the purpose of social justice.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has agreed to examine an important constitutional issue concerning the implementation of the “creamy layer” principle in reservations granted to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
A public interest petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking directions to implement the creamy layer system in SC/ST reservations. The petition argues that allowing affluent and advanced members of SC/ST communities to continue enjoying reservation benefits defeats the very purpose of affirmative action and violates several constitutional provisions.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who issued notice in the PIL after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, appeared in person before the Court.
In the plea, it is submitted that the non-exclusion of the creamy layer from SC/ST reservations violates Articles 14, 15, 16, 17, 38, 41, 46, 51-A(j), and 335 of the Constitution.
The petition states that the cause of action arose on 1 December 2025, when the petitioner became aware that economically and socially advanced families within SC/ST categories are repeatedly availing reservation benefits and
“hogging up huge chunk of the Reserved Seats in Union and State Civil Services Examinations, JEE, NEET, CLAT, CAT, and Bank, Railway and other government jobs.”
The plea emphasises that reservations were never meant to be permanent in nature. According to the petitioner, reservation was introduced only as a tool for socio-economic justice and was intended to benefit those who are genuinely backward and disadvantaged. It adds that granting reservation in a blanket manner, without reviewing who actually needs it, is harmful to the nation.
The petition states,
“Excessive Reservation without implementing Creamy Layer System with stringent measures, is violative of the Constitutional Spirit of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience. Presently, Reservation being given without Periodic Assessments is antithetical to the constitutional goal of socio-economic justice and equal opportunity”.
The plea also traces the historical background of the reservation policy and relies on speeches made during the Constituent Assembly debates by leaders such as Dr B.R. Ambedkar, V. I. Muniswamy Pillai, and Jaipal Singh, to argue that reservation was meant as a corrective measure and not as an entitlement for the already empowered sections.
It further states,
“The Constitution has to be interpreted purposively because it aims for a developed India and also for a great nation. All the provisions of the Constitution have to be read purposively. The purpose/aims and objectives have to be deciphered from the Preamble itself. Our Constitution aims to establish social, economic and political justice, equality, fraternity, and liberty. Its main aim is to eradicate all sorts of inequalities and social evils that pervaded our country. It does not allow us to do reverse discrimination in the name of reservation. Its purpose is to keep India on the trajectory of development. The path to development can be laden with reservation, but it cannot be reservation only. Economic efficiency is an unignorable part of development. The unity of country has to be kept intact. It cannot be compromised by sowing seeds of animosity between different groups which may feel alienated due to irrational and excessive reservation.”
The petition categorises the impact of the current reservation policy into national, social, economic, and cultural consequences. It claims that the present system has led to the creation of an elite class within reserved communities, thereby undermining genuine social justice.
According to the plea,
“The outcome is an elite cycle of power disguised as social justice. This also encourages a political culture where people focus on retaining backward status for benefits and not on genuine empowerment, weakening national unity and shifting politics from economic upliftment to identity preservation,”
it says.
The petition also highlights the issue of internal inequality within SC and ST communities. It notes,
“Sub-Stratification within SC/ST’s- The social impact of the current policy is the most tragic for the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action, leading to the stratification of SC and ST communities into ‘forward-backwards’ and ‘real backwards.’ We are witnessing the solidification of a ‘class within a caste’, a section of the community that has successfully availed the benefits of Reservation and come to settle on an equal pedestal as the General Category and is raising their subsequent generations in the same shared space as the other non-reserved categories. This phenomenon leads to ‘elite capture,’ where the benefits of affirmative action circulate within a closed loop of families.”
On the cultural impact, the plea submits that continuing reservation benefits for the creamy layer damages the collective identity of SC and ST communities. It states that when privileged members adopt upper-caste lifestyles but still claim backward status, it distorts the true cultural representation of these communities.
This, according to the petitioner, creates a misleading picture of upliftment, while the most disadvantaged sections remain unheard and invisible.
The petition raises several questions of law for the Supreme Court’s consideration. These include whether reservation without excluding the creamy layer in SC/ST categories aligns with justice, equity, and good conscience; whether excessive reservation without such exclusion violates the spirit of the Preamble; whether it breaches Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1)(g), and 21; whether the State is constitutionally bound to identify and exclude the creamy layer to ensure real equality; whether failure to implement the creamy layer principle violates the concept of “temporal reasonableness”; whether such failure goes against the spirit of Articles 38, 41, and 46; and whether reservation without excluding the creamy layer defeats the very legislative intent behind affirmative action.
ALSO READ: ‘Constitution Not Permanent’: CJI BR Gavai Echoes Ambedkar’s Vision for Continuous Reform
In conclusion, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the Union and State governments to take concrete and time-bound steps to implement the creamy layer system in SC/ST reservations.
It is also pointed out that in August 2024, the Supreme Court had already held that sub-categorisation and sub-division within SC/ST communities is constitutionally permissible. In that judgment, the Court had observed that for affirmative action to truly benefit the most backward sections, the “Creamy Layer” should be excluded even from reservations provided to SCs and STs.
Case Title:
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Others
[W.P.(C) No. 1276/2025].
Read More Reports On Sameer Wankhede
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
