In a decision that has been long-awaited, the Supreme Court has agreed to re-examine the ‘creamy layer’ issue, which is currently applicable only for those who fall under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) quota. This move will certainly open up new vistas of legal debate and controversy, and also bring out a new perspective on how reservations should be applied.
It helps the SC/ST candidates a lot. By introducing creamy layer and allowing SC/ST candidates to compete in the general category would help thousands to leave the space for the less privileged among them.
It is next to impossible to identify someone status by Caste. The basic premise of the creamy layer is that a person should be brought within the ambit of reservation only if they are ‘poor’, failing which the benefit of the reservation should be denied.
Reservation should be given for a period of time for everybody and after that time period things should be reviewed and if a person has reached the level where reservation is not needed it should be revoked. Reservation is a good in the beginning but it has been misused to feed someone's personal interest. In this context the idea of Creamy layer can help.
The creamy layer policy is said to be a factor of deprivation of the right of SC/STs. The complaint is that the well-educated and well-to-do even among SC/STs are admitted in combination with Non-Reserved categories at par with the OBCs.
The Supreme Court of India in Nagraj vs Union of India, ruled that the people belonging to SC &ST should be classified into groups and that the more advanced among these castes i.e. “the creamy layer” should be excluded from all the advantages of the affirmative action provided by the State to the most depresses and oppressed classes of people in India.
The reservation policy is still in effect for the people under the SC/ST category, but today are these reservations actually being stolen away by the creamy layer. To fully understand this argument we must first understand what is meant by the term creamy layer in respect to the reservations policy.
In the present so-called reservations are nothing but means to prosper the vote banks of politicians. But the creamy layer is a tool used by the Indian Government to determine who belongs to social and economic backward classes.
Reservation to a certain extent is fair and just. It uplifts those who have been deprived of their rights to lead a normal life due to poverty etc. But reservation should be such that it filters the truly disadvantaged, but not the privileged people. The truly disadvantaged ones need to be brought to normal standards of living but if a reservation is given blindly to everyone it would do more harm than good for the country. The process of reservation should be such that it filters the truly economically deprived individuals and bring them all to justice.
Against Precedence: In Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case, the Supreme Court observed that any discussion on creamy layer “has no relevance” in the context of SC/STs. Rigid criteria cannot be laid down for this purpose simply because this will give rise to an infinite number of anomalies.
Representation: Going by the creamy layer ceiling of Rs 8 lakh per annum, even “Group D” functionaries will come under the definition of creamy layer. This amounts to an injustice and essentially negates the whole point of reservations.
Protection: Power affects every person in society. It affects even the poor sections of society, but in different ways. The SC/STs are given job reservations not because they are poor but because they are excluded. The Constitution made the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as a separate category of subjects to protect them from caste aggression. It was also to help them gain the strength they need to withstand it and to grow autonomously.
A right and not a welfare: The purpose of job reservations under Article 335 is to correct historical wrongs under the caste system. This argument is fundamentally opposed to the notion that job reservations are a welfare measure or a right, and instead claims that it ought to be seen as a remedy for historical wrongs.
