The Supreme Court of India has once again put the spotlight on the principle of reservation — not by striking it down or expanding it, but by asking a fundamental question: should the benefits of caste-based reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) continue to flow unabated through generations of the same families, or should there be an economic cutoff — a creamy layer — to ensure that affirmative action reaches those who need it most?
In mid-January 2026, a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices to the Centre and all state governments on a Public Interest Litigation demanding that economically advanced members of SC/ST communities be identified and excluded from reservation benefits. The court has deliberately not gone into the merits but has sought the government’s view, acknowledging that this is a “sensitive” question that goes beyond judicial interpretation into the domain of public policy defined by Parliament.
The Crux of the Petition
The petition, filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, grounds itself in a simple observation: affirmative action — conceived as a compensatory tool to uplift historically oppressed communities — risks being monopolised by a relatively small cohort of families within those communities who have already achieved economic security. If a pioneering SC or ST student enters a professional course or becomes an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) or Indian Police Service (IPS) officer with the help of reservation, the children of such families continue to avail reservation benefits in education and government jobs — often repeatedly. This dynamic, the petition argues, denies opportunities to the truly disadvantaged within the same caste groups who have been left behind.
By analogy, our reservation regime already recognises the creamy layer concept within the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category — excluding relatively affluent OBC individuals from quota benefits so that the policy’s focus remains on the economically disadvantaged. Extending this idea to SC/ST reservations, proponents argue, is neither radical nor anti-constitution; it is a logical evolution to preserve the original intent of affirmative action.
Why the Court Is Asking, Not Deciding
Critically, the Supreme Court’s current step is not a judgment. The court has explicitly granted time — typically six weeks — for the Union and state governments to respond before it considers whether to examine the issue on merits. This reflects judicial prudence. Reservations for SC/ST communities are embedded in complex socio-economic histories of exclusion, discrimination, and caste oppression — far deeper than simple income measurements can capture. A constitutional court, therefore, is rightly cautious before directing changes that may have far-reaching political, social, and legal consequences.
The bench itself characterised the subject as sensitive, signalling that it wishes to hear how the executive and legislature view intra-community inequalities and whether judicial interference here would overstep democratic boundaries.
The Case for a Creamy Layer
Supporters of extending the creamy layer argue on two fronts — moral and practical:
- Moral Logic: Reservation is meant to be remedial, not hereditary privilege. If reservations have helped a family climb socio-economic ladders, there is a moral case that their children — already advantaged by environment, education, and connections — should not continue enjoying elevated preferential access at the expense of others still struggling.
- Practical Equity: Limited seats in professional colleges and jobs mean that if affluent SC/ST families continue to draw benefits generation after generation, the ground-level beneficiaries remain underserved. A ceiling or economic filter could redirect opportunities to the most deprived among the same communities.
This line of reasoning resonates with many who see the current reservation model being captured disproportionately by a small subset of relatively well-off families.
The Counterarguments
Opposition to importing the creamy layer into SC/ST quotas stems from equally legitimate concerns:
- Historical Backdrop: Caste oppression and social discrimination endured by these communities cannot be reduced purely to economic measures. Raw income figures may not capture entrenched social exclusion, prejudice, or lack of access to networks that continue beyond class lines.
- Constitutional Purity: Key defenders point out that the Indian Constitution does not explicitly mandate a creamy layer for SC/ST reservations, and any judicially imposed economic criteria risks judicial overreach into policy areas best left to Parliament.
- Social Cohesion: For many activists and organisations within SC/ST communities, reservation represents not just economic upliftment but dignity, representation, and historical justice — elements that risk dilution if reduced to numbers.
Who Decides, and How?
Herein lies the heart of the matter: the Supreme Court’s invitation to the Centre and states is a constitutional dialogue, not a directive. Reservations are created and managed by elected lawmakers under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. It is, ultimately, for the legislature and executive to weigh socio-political realities, economic data, and constitutional principles before framing any policy to narrow or broaden benefits. Judicial input can frame the debate, but democratic legitimacy comes from Parliament.
A Wake-Up Call for Reform, Not an Endpoint
The Supreme Court’s step to seek opinions should not be seen as an attack on reservation itself. On the contrary, it is a call to renew the national conversation on how affirmative action can be more targeted, equitable, and true to its founding purpose. If the system ends up redistributing benefits to those who remain socially and economically deprived — whether by income, education, or opportunity — it will have been strengthened, not weakened.
For now, the ball is firmly in the legislature’s court. The government’s response — whether cautious, reform-minded, or dismissive — will shape the next chapter of India’s reservation policy, and possibly redefine how constitutional justice is delivered in practice.
