The policy of reservation is a form of compensatory discrimination aimed at rectifying the historical

injustice done to certain socially and economically disadvantaged sections of society.1) But some
affluent members of the backward classes can predominantly use the benefits of reservations and easily
occupy all the quotas while the poorest and most backward members remain impoverished and
downtrodden. These affluent members form the creamy layer. It can be collectively said that a creamy
layer is a group of people in the backward classes who are socially, economically, and educationally well-
advanced3). The creamy layer is not provided with reservation privileges so that the benefits of
reservations can reach the weakest and poorest members of backward classes. A systematic probe has
been made in this project to understand the concept of creamy layer. Chapter 1 illustrates the
significance of the creamy layer concept in the Indian reservation system .Chapter 2 clearly describes
who comes under the creamy layer..Chapter 3 trace the evolution of creamy layer concept. Chapter 4
analyzes the conflict of interests between the judiciary and parliament concerning the application
creamy layer concept to SC/ST.

Significance of creamy layer concept

Significance of creamy layer concept

The policy of reservation gives rise to some evils as stated by justice Krishna iyer in the Thomas case. the
creamy layer concept helps to remove these evils from the society and thus enables reservation to serve
its true purpose. The creamy layer concept has a huge significance in the Indian reservation system. The
significance of the creamy layer concept could be understood by the words of jeevan reddy j in indra
sawhney case.

In his opinion in Indra Sawhney, Jeevan Reddy, J., has emphasized that upon the member of a backward
class reaching an "advanced social level or status", he would no longer belong to the backward class and
would have to be weeded out. The Court has opined that the exclusion of creamy layer, i.e., socially
advanced members, will make the class a truly backward class and would more appropriately serve the
purpose and object of Art. 16(4)

Jeevan Reddy, J., has stated that there are sections among the backward classes who are highly
advanced socially and educationally, and they constitute the forward section of the community. These
benefits the truly advanced sections do not belong to the true backward class. "After excluding them
alone, the class would be a compact class. In fact, such exclusion benefits the truly backward."

A line has to be drawn between the forward in the backward class and the rest of the backward. If the
creamy layer is not excluded, the truly disadvantaged members of the backward class to which they
belong will be deprived of the benefits of reservation. If the creamy layer among backward classes were
given the same benefits as backward classes, it will amount to treating unequals equally which amounts
to the violation of the equality clause.
Overall it can be said that Fills certain loopholes of the reservation system. Makes a class compact class
by excluding the highly advanced members. Helps to serve the true objective of article 16(4).

It can be said that creamy layer helps the reservation to serve its true purpose by removing certain evils
of reservation system. Due to the creamy layer concept the state can provide reservations to the
needed people. There will be no occupying of the posts in the public institutions. And the
equality will also prevail. in the beginning there was a situation where many castes claim to be
backward classes and hope for reservation and exploit them but now the much needed people
can take use of the a tool to overcome reservation policies. Act c as the people reservations.
Economic criteria may help removing the creamy layer.

Who comes under creamy layer

Economic limit- 8 lakhs1) ption of Category To whom rule of exclusion will apply.

Persons/Sections Excluded from Reservation which constitute Creamy Layer of the Society[7]
Descri
I. Constitutional Posts: Son(s) and daughter(s) of
(a) President of India;
(b) Vice President of India;2
(c) Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts;
(d) Chairman & Members of UPSC and of the State Public Service Commission; Chief Election
Commissioner; Comptroller & Auditor General of India;
(e) Persons holding Constitutional positions of like nature.

II.Service Category
A. Group A/Class 1 officers of the All India Central and State Services (Direct Recruits) Son(s) and
daughter(s) of

(a) Parents, both of whom are Class I officers;

(b) parents, either of whom is a Class I officer;
(c) parents, both of whom are Class I officers, but one of them dies or suffers permanent incapacitation.
(d) parents, either of whom is a Class I officer and such parent dies or suffers permanent incapacitation
and before such death or such incapacitation has had the benefit of employment in any International
Organisation like UN, IMF, World Bank, etc. for a period of not less than 5 years.
(e) parents, both of whom are class I officers die or suffer permanent incapacitation and before such
death or such incapacitation of the both, either of them has had the benefit of employment in any
International Organisation like UN, IMF, World Bank, etc. for a period of not less than 5 years.
(f) Provided that the rule of exclusion shall not apply in the following cases :-

(a) Sons and daughters of parents either of whom or both of whom are Class-I officers and such
parent(s) dies / die or suffer permanent incapacitation.
(b) A lady belonging to OBC category has got married to a Class-I officer, and may herself like to apply for
a job.

B. Group B/Class II officers of the Central & State Services (Direct Recruitment) Son(s) and daughter(s) of

(a) parents both of whom are Class II officers.

(b) parents of whom only the husband is a Class II officer and he gets into Class I at the age of 40 or
earlier.
(c) parents, both of whom are Class II officers and one of them dies or suffers permanent incapacitation
and either one of them has had the benefit of employment in any International Organisation like UN,
IMF, World Bank, etc. for a period of not less than 5 years before such death or permanent
incapacitation;
(d) parents, of whom the husband is a Class I officer (direct recruit or pre-forty promoted) and the wife is
a Class II officer and the wife dies; or suffers permanent incapacitation; and
(e) parents, of whom the wife is a Class I officer (Direct Recruit or pre-forty promoted) and the husband
is a Class II officer and the husband dies or suffers permanent incapacitation.

Provided that the rule of exclusion shall not apply in the following cases: Sons and daughters of
(a) Parents both of whom are Class II officers and one of them dies or suffers permanent incapacitation.
(b) Parents, both of whom are Class II officers and both of them die or suffer permanent incapacitation,
even though either of them has had the benefit of employment in any International Organization like
UN, IMF, World Bank, etc. for a period of not less than 5 years before their death or permanent
incapacitation.

C. Employees in Public Sector Undertakings etc. The criteria enumerated in A & B above in this Category
will apply mutatis mutandi to officers holding equivalent or comparable posts in PSUs, banks, Insurance
Organizations, Universities, etc. and also to equivalent or comparable posts and positions under private
employment, Pending the evaluation of the posts on equivalent or comparable basis in these
institutions, the criteria specified in Category VI below will apply to the officers in these Institutions.

III. Armed Forces Including Paramilitary Forces[8]

(Persons holding civil posts are not included) Son(s) and daughter(s) of parents either or both of whom is
or are in the rank of Colonel and above in the Army and to equivalent posts in the Navy and the Air
Force and the Para Military Forces;
Provided that:-
(i) if the wife of an Armed Forces Officer is herself in the Armed Forces (i.e., the category under
consideration) the rule of exclusion will apply only when she herself has reached the rank of Colonel;

(ii) the services ranks below Colonel of husband and wife shall not be clubbed together:

(iii) if the wife of an officer in the Armed Forces is in civil employment, this will not be taken into account
for applying the rule of exclusion unless the falls in the service category under item No.II in which case
the criteria and conditions enumerated therein will apply to her independently.

IV. Professional Class And Those Engaged In Trade And Industry

(I) Persons engaged in profession as a doctor, lawyer, Chartered Accountant, Income- Tax Consultant,
financial or management consultant, dental surgeon, engineer, architect, computer specialist, film
artists and other film professional, author, playwright, sports person, sports professional, media
professional or any other vocations of like status. Criteria specified against Category VI will apply:

(II) Persons engaged in trade, business and industry: Criteria specified against Category VI will apply:

Interpretation:
(i) Where the husband is in some profession and the wife is in a Class II or lower grade employment, the
income / wealth test will apply only on the basis of the husband's income.

(ii) If the wife is in any profession and the husband is in employment in a Class II or lower rank post, then
the income/wealth criterion will apply only on the basis of the wife's income and the husband's income
will not be clubbed with it.

V. Property Owners[9]
A. Agricultural holdings -- Son(s) and daughter(s) of persons belonging to a family (father, mother and
minor children) which owns

(a) only irrigated land which is equal to or more than 85% of the statutory ceiling area, or
(b) both irrigated and unirrigated land, as follows:

(i) The rule of exclusion will apply where the pre-condition exists that the irrigated area (having been
brought to a single type under a common denominator) 40% or more of the statutory ceiling, limit for
irrigated land (this being, calculated by excluding the unirrigated portion). If this pre-condition of not
less than 40% exists, then only the area of unirrigated land will be taken into account. This will be done
by converting the unirrigated land on the basis of the conversion formula existing, into the irrigated
type. The irrigated area so computed from unirrigated land shall be added to the actual area of irrigated
land and if after such clubbing together the total area in terms of irrigated land is 80% or more of the
statutory ceiling limit for irrigated land, then the rule of exclusion will apply and dis-entitlement will
occur.

(ii) The rule of exclusion will not apply if the land holding of a family is exclusively unirrigated.
B. Plantations
(i) Coffee, tea, rubber, etc.
(ii) Mango, citrus, apple plantations etc.

Criteria of income/wealth specified in Category VI below will apply.

Deemed as agricultural holding and hence criteria at A above under this Category will apply.

C. Vacant land and/or buildings in urban areas or urban agglomerations: Criteria specified in Category VI
below will apply.

Interpretation:
Building may be used for residential, industrial or commercial purpose and the like two or more such
purposes.

VI. Income/Wealth Test[10] Son(S) And Daughter(S) Of

(a) Persons having gross income of Rs.1 lakh or above or possessing wealth above the exemption limit as
prescribed in the Wealth Tax Act for a period of three years.

(b) Persons in Categories I, II, III and VA who are not disentitled to the benefit of reservation but have
income from other sources of wealth which will bring them within the income/wealth criteria
mentioned in (a) above.

Interpretation:
(i) Income from salaries or agricultural land shall not be clubbed;
(ii) The income criteria in terms of rupee will be modified taking into account the change in its value
every three years. If the situation, however, so demands, the interregnum may be less.

Evolution of the creamy layer concept

Satanathan commission,stat eof kerala vs nm thomas. Mandal commission. Next justice ramnandan
committee. Indra sawhney. Approach of various states. Indra sawhney 2.next government orders
amendments. Next impoportant cases how the court upheld it. Application of creamy layer to sc/st –
 The term creamy layer was introduced by the Sattanathan Commission . Sattanathan Commission
recommended the introduction of “Creamy Layer” among the OBC in tamil nadu. It directed that
the “creamy layer” should be excluded from the reservations (quotas) of civil posts. (The first
Backward Classes Commission in Tamil Nadu was formed on November 13, 1969. It was known
as Sattanathan Commission.)

Next we can find creamy layer in state of kerala vs nm Thomas case. This was the first Supreme Court
Judgment to use the term ‘creamy layer’ as it upheld the policy of reservations in promotions. Justice
Krishna Iyer cautioned against the benefits of reservations being cornered by affluent individuals from
backward castes. He observed that “benefits of the reservation shall be snatched away by the top
creamy layer of the backward class, thus leaving the weakest among the weak and leaving the fortunate
layers to consume the whole cake” This was detrimental to the ‘weak’ members of the same groups,
who were then unable to avail of the benefits of reservations. While these were merely the Court’s
observations and not converted into binding law, the Court addressed the creamy layer issue in the
indra sawhney over 15 years after its decision in this case.

The creamy layer concept was clearly defined in The Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case,
also known as the Mandal Commission case, which was a landmark decision by the Supreme
Court of India in 1992.( regarding the reservation of seats in educational institutions and public
employment for the socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) in India)

One of the key issues in the case was the concept of the 'creamy layer' among the SEBCs, which
refers to those individuals within a community who are relatively more affluent, socially
advanced, and do not require the benefits of reservation. The petitioners argued that the creamy
layer should be excluded from the benefits of reservation.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Mandal Commission's
recommendations on reservation for SEBCs, but also introduced the concept of the creamy layer
to ensure that only the deserving sections of the SEBCs benefit from it. The Court held that the
creamy layer should be excluded from the benefits of reservation, and laid down certain criteria
for identifying the creamy layer, including income, wealth, and social status. in a big country like
India, norms may differ from State to State or from region to region. Accordingly, the Court has
directed that a body be constituted both at the Centre and at the State level to identify the creamy
layer within the backward classes. The Supreme Court has observed in this connection: "The
backward class under Art. 16(4) means the class which has no element of "creamy layer" in it. It
is mandatory under Art. 16(4)--as interpreted by this Court--that the State must identify the
'creamy layer' in a backward class and thereafter by excluding the 'creamy layer' extend the
benefit of reservation to the 'class' which remains after such exclusion."thus the court directed all
the states to identify the creamy layer. The Supreme Court in November, 1992 in its judgement in
Indira Sahni & Others v/s Union of India had directed the Central Government as well as the State
Governments to specify the basis for applying the relevant and requisite socio-economic criteria to
exclude advanced persons/ sections, popularly known as Creamy Layer, from OBCs. Subsequently an
expert Committee headed by Justice Ram Nandan Prasad was constituted by the Government. The
recommendations made by the Committee for excluding the Creamy Layer amongst OBCs was accepted
by the Government.
The Ram Nandan Committee was set up in 1993 by the Government of India to examine the
concept of 'creamy layer' within the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and recommend measures
for its exclusion from the benefits of reservation.

The committee recommended that the creamy layer among the OBCs be identified based on
criteria such as income, wealth, and educational qualifications, and excluded from the benefits of
reservation. The committee also recommended that the creamy layer be redefined periodically
based on changing economic and social conditions.. the central government acceptedthe
recommendations of the committee

There has been a good deal of resistance on the part of the States to the idea of excluding the
creamy layer. The States have adopted various devices to continue to confer benefits of
reservation on the creamy layer. The reason may be that the policy-making power vests in the
creamy layer and such persons do not like to curtail their own privileges. This is illustrated by
the following two cases.

In Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar, 80 the Supreme Court has assessed the validity of
unrealistically high levels of income or holding of other conditions prescribed by the
Legislatures of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar as criteria to identify the creamy layer. For example,
while the Supreme Court in the Mandal case has categorically said that the Children of IAS or
IPS, etc. without anything more could not avail the benefit of reservation, in the scheme drawn in
UP and Bihar, a few more conditions were added for falling in the creamy layer, such as, he/she
should be getting a salary of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. or more; the wife or husband to be a graduate and
owning a house in an urban area. Or, if a professional doctor, surgeon, lawyer, architect, etc., he
should be having an income not less than Rs. 10 lakhs, his/her spouse is a graduate and having
Page 1105 family property worth Rs. 20 lakhs. Similar conditions were added in case of others,
such as, traders, artisans, etc. The Supreme Court has quashed these conditions as discriminatory.
The Court has ruled that these conditions laid down by the two States have no 'nexus' with the
object sought to be achieved.

The criteria laid down by the two States to identify the creamy layer are violative of Art. 16(4),
wholly arbitrary, violative of Art. 14, and against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the
Mandal case, where the Court has expressed the view that a member of the All India Service
without anything more ought to be regarded as belonging to the "creamy layer". The Court has
observed in this regard:81 "The backward class under Article 16(4) means the class which has no
element of 'creamy layer' in it. It is mandatory under Art. 16(4)--as interpreted by this Court--that
the state must identify the 'creamy layer' in a backward class and thereafter, by excluding the
'creamy layer' extend the benefit of reservation to the 'class' which remains after such exclusion.
This Court has laid down, clear and easy to follow guidelines for the identification of 'creamy
layer'. The States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh have acted wholly arbitrary and in utter violation of
the law laid down by this Court in Mandal case. It is difficult to accept that in India where the
per capita national income is Rs. 6929 (1993-94), a person who is a member of the IAS and a
professional who is earning less than Rs. 10 lakhs per annum is socially and educationally
backward. We are of the view that the criteria laid down by the States of Bihar and Uttar
Pradesh, for identifying the 'creamy layer' on the face of it is arbitrary and has to be rejected."
 The Kerala Legislature passed an Act in 1995 declaring that there was no creamy layer in the
State of Kerala. The validity of the State Act was challenged in the Supreme Court. In Indra
Sawhney v. Union of India (II), 82 the Court has explained further the rationale underlying the
rule of exclusion of 'creamy-layer'. As the 'creamy layer' is not entitled to the benefits of
reservation, non-exclusion thereof will be discrimination and violation of Arts. 14 and 16 in as
much as unequals cannot be treated as equals, i.e., equal to the rest of the backward class.
Therefore, any executive or legislative action refusing to exclude the creamy layer from the
benefits of reservation will amount to violation of Arts. 14, 16(1) and 16(4).

In the instant case, the Court has declared the Kerala Act declaring that there are no socially
advanced sections in any backward class in the State as unconstitutional as being violative of
Arts. 14 and 16(1). According to the Court, the Act has shut its eyes to the realities and facts; it
has no factual basis. "The declaration is a mere cloak and is unrelated to facts in existence". The
Court has emphasized that equality is the basic feature of the Constitution and neither Parliament
nor any State Legislature can transgress this principle.83 Non-exclusion of creamy layer will not
only be a breach of Art. 14 but even of the basic structure of the Constitution and, therefore,
totally illegal.84 The Court has criticised the attitude of the State of Kerala in this matter in
trenchant terms, characterising the State action as being against Rule of Law and amounting to
"deliberate violation of the directions of the Court".

The Court has observed:85 ".......... the unreasonable delay on the part of the Kerala Government
and the discriminatory law made by the Kerala Legislature have been in virtual defiance of the
rule of law and also an indefensible breach of the equality principle which is a basic feature of
the Constitution. They are also in open violation of the judgments of this Court which are
binding under Article 141 and the fundamental concept of separation of powers which has also
been held to be a basic feature of the constitution. The State has already been held guilty of
contempt." The Court has directed the State to make provision for the exclusion of the creamy
layer among the backward classes in the State. Just as the Court has insisted on the exclusion of
the creamy layer from the backward classes, so also the Court has insisted on the exclusion of the
forward classes from the list of backward classes.

Income criteria

1 to 2.5 lakhs in 20042008 2.5 to 4.5 lakhs

2013 4.5 lakhs to 6 lakhs

17 6-8 .

Currently there are many issues surrounding in parliament and judiciary. So not revised.

The later creamy layer evolution in terms of sc st can be seen in chapter 4

Application of creamy layer concept to sc/st : Conflict of
interests between the judiciary and the parliament

Who are backward classes who are sc st. why not applied before? Recently why it applied.
What the court held. How the government responded to that. Currently what is
happening.views on that?

The concenpt of creamy layer originally was applied and was only for the backward classes and
not for sc st. later in jarnail singh v lachmi narain gupta case and the

 The 77th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1995 was enacted inserting clause 4A in Article 16 of the
Constitution (Clause 4A provides for giving benefit of promotion in service to the SC and ST).

 The court ruled that if reservation is implemented it must not breach the 50% ceiling or
“obliterate the creamy layer”.
 On 26th September 2018, the Supreme Court delivered its verdict in the Reservation in
Promotion case (Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta case).
 A five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that the judgment delivered in
Nagaraj case in 2006 does not need reconsideration by a larger seven-judge Bench.
 The Bench also struck the demonstration of further backwardness criterion from Nagaraj
case.
 It introduced the principle of creamy layer exclusion and held that creamy layer
exclusion extends to SC/STs.

 Hence the State cannot grant reservations in promotion to SC/ST individuals who belong
to the creamy layer of their community

The judiciary, which is responsible for interpreting the Constitution and safeguarding the rights of
citizens, has taken several steps to ensure that the creamy layer criteria is applied fairly and effectively.
In a landmark judgment in 2008, the Supreme Court held that the creamy layer principle should be
applied to SC/ST in order to ensure that the benefits of affirmative action reach the intended
beneficiaries.
However, some members of parliament may have a different perspective on the matter. They
may argue that the creamy layer criteria should not be applied to SC/ST as it could lead to a
reduction in the number of beneficiaries and may go against the spirit of affirmative action.

In such a situation, it is important for both the judiciary and parliament to engage in a
constructive dialogue and find a middle ground that upholds the principles of equality and
justice. The judiciary can provide guidance and clarity on the legal and constitutional aspects of
the issue, while parliament can take into account the socio-economic realities and concerns of the
marginalized communities.

On the other hand, the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has been vocal in its support for the
application of the creamy layer criteria. The court has held that it is necessary to ensure that the
benefits of affirmative action reach the intended beneficiaries and that the creamy layer principle is an
essential tool for achieving this objective.

In the 2008 judgment in the M. Nagaraj case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the
creamy layer criteria and ruled that it should be applied to SC/ST as well. However, the court also
clarified that the criteria should not be applied mechanically and that each case should be considered on
its merits.

The Court upheld reservations in promotions for SC/STs in public employment. However, it extended the
creamy layer principle to SC/STs in promotions. This means that SC/STs belonging to the creamy layer
are not eligible for reservations in promotions. The objective of reservations is to ensure that backward
classes are able to progress on an equal basis with other citizens. However, those belonging to the
creamy layer in the SC/ST category were cornering the coveted jobs in the public sector. Those who
were truly backward were unable to access the benefits of reservations. The Court emphasised that the
exclusion of the creamy layer is a facet of equality. Failing to apply the creamy layer principle would
treat equals unequally—the general category candidates would be treated differently than the forward
among the SC/ST community. Further, without the creamy layer principle, unequals would be treated
equally—the backward SC/STs would be treated the same as the forward among the SC/STs.

 The SC ruled that “the State is not bound to make reservation for SC/ST
in matter of promotions.
 However if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such
provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing
backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that
class in public employment.
 It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, the State
will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to
Conclusion/ Suggestions
In conclusion, the application of the creamy layer criteria to SC/ST is a complex issue that requires a
nuanced approach. While the judiciary and parliament may have differing perspectives on the matter, it
is essential to ensure that the benefits of affirmative action reach those who are truly in need, while also
promoting the overall development and empowerment of the SC/ST communities. A constructive
dialogue and a willingness to find common ground can go a long way in achieving these objectives.

90 percent and above

nation-wide stir