New Delhi- On August 11, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Union government in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Ramashankar Prajapati and Yamuna Prasad, both from Scheduled Caste (SC) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) backgrounds, advocating for an income-based prioritization within SC/ST reservations.

The PIL seeks to implement a "creamy layer" mechanism to ensure that reservation benefits in government employment and educational opportunities prioritize the economically disadvantaged within these communities. The petitioners argue that wealthier SC/ST families have disproportionately captured these benefits, leaving the poorest behind.

Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, acknowledging the petition’s far-reaching implications, cautioned the counsel to brace for significant opposition and requested responses from the government by October 10, 2025. This development has reignited debates over the structure of India’s reservation policies, with a retired Judge Anil Vaidya warning of profound constitutional and social risks associated with introducing a creamy layer for SC/ST communities.

Constitutional Misalignment with Historical Vision

Retired Judge Anil Vaidya argues that applying a creamy layer to SC/ST reservations risks deviating from the Indian Constitution’s original intent, as envisioned by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. During the 1930–32 Round Table Conferences and Constituent Assembly debates, Ambedkar advocated for reservations to ensure social representation for all SC/ST individuals, irrespective of economic status.

Vaidya points to historical examples of affluent SC/ST figures like Dashrath Patil, Rajabhau Khobragade, and Amritrao Rankhambe, who benefited from undifferentiated reservations, a principle supported to advance social justice. He notes that constitutional provisions like Articles 15(4), 15(5), 16(4), and 16(5) enable reservations without referencing a creamy layer, and Articles 341 and 342, which list SCs and STs, similarly make no such distinction.

The 1992 Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India ruling by a nine-judge bench explicitly excluded SC/STs from the creamy layer principle, reinforcing this stance. Vaidya warns that introducing this mechanism through judicial intervention could undermine Ambedkar’s philosophy of social mobility and equality, transforming reservations into a poverty-alleviation program rather than a tool for broader social representation.

Risks of Social Fragmentation and Inequity

Vaidya highlights the danger of creating divisions within SC/ST communities by categorizing individuals based on economic status. A creamy layer policy could fracture these groups, fostering tensions between wealthier and poorer members and weakening their collective fight against historical marginalization. He emphasizes that even economically better-off SC/ST individuals face caste-based discrimination, such as false accusations, dismissals, or lower postings in employment.

Excluding them from reservations could force them into open-category competitions, where biased selection boards might unfairly deny them opportunities, potentially allowing wealthier SC/ST members to dominate reserved seats. This could perpetuate intra-community inequities, contrary to the PIL’s goal of aiding the most disadvantaged. Vaidya warns that such fragmentation could destabilize the social cohesion that reservations were designed to promote, creating two distinct groups within SC/ST communities and undermining their unified advocacy for equality.

Threats to Legal Protections and Constitutional Balance

A critical concern raised by Vaidya is the potential loss of legal protections for SC/ST individuals classified as part of the creamy layer. He questions whether such individuals would be excluded from safeguards under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, leaving them vulnerable to caste-based discrimination without legal recourse. Vaidya references the 1951 Dorai Champakan vs. Madras Government case, where the Supreme Court struck down reservations, prompting constitutional amendments under Article 15(4) to secure affirmative action despite opposition.

He cautions that altering the reservation framework without careful consideration could disrupt this delicate constitutional balance, potentially sparking further legal challenges. The Supreme Court’s recent guidance on August 1, 2024, in cases like Punjab Government vs. Devendra Singh and Andhra Pradesh, recommending a creamy layer for SC/STs, has intensified this debate.

Vaidya urges the government, lawmakers, and legal professionals to approach this issue cautiously to preserve the spirit of social justice, ensuring that any reform aligns with the Constitution’s foundational principles and avoids eroding protections for SC/ST communities.