The Union Government has informed the Supreme Court that reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) cannot be restructured on the basis of income alone. In a detailed affidavit, the Centre argued that the constitutional framework for reservation is founded on historical discrimination, social exclusion, and long-standing backwardness rather than economic status.
The affidavit was filed in response to a petition seeking directions to introduce income-based criteria and apply the “creamy layer” principle within SC and ST reservations.
Centre Says Reservation Is Based on Social Justice, Not Wealth
According to the Union Government, the objective of reservation is to address centuries of social discrimination faced by SC and ST communities. It submitted that financial advancement alone does not erase the social disadvantages and stigma that these communities continue to experience.
The Centre maintained that using income as the primary basis for determining reservation eligibility would fundamentally alter the constitutional philosophy behind affirmative action. It emphasized that reservation for SCs and STs was never intended to function as an anti-poverty measure but as a mechanism to ensure representation and equality for historically marginalized communities.
Parliament Alone Can Decide on Creamy Layer for SC/STs
The government also argued that the question of introducing a creamy layer or income-based exclusion for SCs and STs falls within the legislative domain.
According to the affidavit, any decision to exclude economically advanced members of SC or ST communities from reservation benefits must come through Parliament after careful policy consideration and adequate empirical research. The Centre contended that the judiciary should not direct the executive to frame such policies without a legislative mandate.
Also Read: Can a Husband Claim Maintenance from His Wife? Latest Supreme Court Judgments Explained
Government Opposes Judicial Directions on Reservation Policy
The Centre urged the Supreme Court to reject the petition, stating that the relief sought involves policy decisions rather than questions suitable for judicial intervention.
It argued that reservation policies require detailed socio-economic studies, consultation, and legislative deliberation. Therefore, courts should avoid issuing directions that effectively require the government to redesign the reservation framework.
The affidavit further highlighted the constitutional principle of separation of powers, asserting that policymaking in this area belongs to the legislature and the executive.
Centre Relies on Earlier Supreme Court Judgments
In defending its position, the government referred to earlier Supreme Court rulings dealing with reservation.
The affidavit stated that the creamy layer principle was developed in the landmark Indra Sawhney judgment specifically for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). It further pointed out that subsequent judicial decisions have clarified that the doctrine does not automatically apply to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The Centre also referred to previous judgments holding that any alteration to the SC and ST reservation structure, including exclusion of particular groups, is a matter requiring parliamentary action rather than executive or judicial intervention.
Also Read: 180 Days Maternity Leave to Commissioning/Surrogate Mothers: Himachal Pradesh HC
Petition Seeks Income-Based Distribution Within Reserved Categories
The petition before the Supreme Court seeks directions to create income-based sub-classifications within existing reserved categories. It argues that relatively well-off families within SC, ST, and OBC communities continue to receive reservation benefits generation after generation, while economically weaker members receive fewer opportunities.
The petitioners have sought guidelines that would distribute reservation benefits more equitably by taking income and economic status into account.
Centre Maintains Social Backwardness Remains the Core Criterion
Rejecting the petition’s approach, the government reiterated that reservation for SCs and STs is rooted in the continuing effects of caste-based discrimination.
The affidavit states that even individuals from these communities who have achieved economic progress may still encounter social barriers and discrimination. Consequently, financial status cannot replace the constitutional test of historical and social disadvantage that underpins SC and ST reservations.
Supreme Court to Consider the Matter
The Supreme Court will now examine the Centre’s response while hearing the petition. The outcome could have significant implications for the ongoing national debate over reservation policy, the applicability of the creamy layer principle to SC and ST communities, and the extent of judicial intervention in matters relating to affirmative action.
For the moment, the Union Government has made its position clear: any move to introduce income-based criteria or creamy layer exclusion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is a legislative decision that, in its view, can only be taken by Parliament after appropriate policy evaluation and supporting data.