Expanding Equality: Sc’s Ruling On “creamy Layer”

Key Points

• The Supreme Court's order to broaden the definition of the "creamy layer" and include members of the SC/ST community will cause changes to the country's current reservation system. This order has made significant changes to India's reservation system by allowing subcategorization within Scheduled Castes and extending the use of the "creamy layer" concept to Scheduled Tribes as well as Scheduled Castes. These steps are intended to ensure that the most underprivileged members of these communities may benefit from reserve. 
• The Indian government has been assigned the responsibility of creating a strong system to identify those who are part of the 'creamy layer' inside the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This procedure is essential in order to avoid the abuse of reservation privileges by economically privileged segments of these communities.
• There is an increasing focus on limiting reservation advantages to just those who are the initial recipients of such benefits. The policy has undergone a gradual transformation in response to dynamic social and economic circumstances. Gaining a comprehensive understanding of this historical backdrop is crucial for fully grasping the intricacies of the present reservation system.
• The criteria for ascertaining an individual's inclusion in the 'creamy layer' are contingent upon elements such as income, employment, and educational credentials

Introduction

The Supreme Court recently in the case of State of Punjab V Davinder Singh & Ors. [2024 INSC 562] had held the sub classification of the SC community. The court stressed the need of keeping the 'creamy layer' within the Scheduled Castes from receiving quota benefits that are specifically earmarked for these groups. Currently, the notion of the 'creamy layer' is only relevant to reservations for Other Backward Classes.

The verdict was pronounced by a panel consisting of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Manoj Misra. Sub-classification was maintained by six justices, with Justice Trivedi dissenting. Out of the six judges, four specifically emphasized in their decisions that the exclusion of the creamy layer should also be applied to SCs.
Justice BR Gavai, in his ruling, emphasized the need for the State to formulate a strategy that can effectively identify the privileged segment within the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, in order to preclude them from receiving affirmative action advantages. He contended that only this method could attain genuine equality as established in the Constitution.
Justice Gavai emphasized that it is important to distinguish between the offspring of SC citizens who have benefited from reservations and the children of others who have not taken advantage of such reserves. He proposed that the standards for distinguishing creamy layers among SCs/STs should be distinct from those used for OBCs.
Justice Vikram Nath endorsed Justice Gavai's perspective, stating that the concept of the creamy layer, which is relevant to Other Backward Classes (OBCs), should also be extended to Scheduled Castes (SCs). Justice Pankaj Mithal argued that reservations should only be awarded to the first generation.
Furthermore, if a first-generation person improves their status via reservation, their offspring in the second generation should not be entitled for reservation benefits. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma concurred with Justice Gavai, stating that the State must legally compel the identification of the creamy layer among SC/STs.
The term "creamy layer" was initially employed by the Apex court in the case of Indira Sawhney v. UOI [AIR 1993 SC 477], which is also known as the Mandal Commission case.
The term "creamy layer" is employed in the political system to refer to members of other backward classes (OBCs) who are economically stable, more educated, and comparatively forward.
The people under such creamy layer aren’t eligible for benefits provided by the government through sponsorship and also, they won’t be getting any professional benefits.
The criteria that was used for the same was the financial status of the OBCs and this was also the main factor that was gauged while introducing the 'creamy layer' concept. 
Individuals who are more financially secure will be classified as part of the creamy layer and will be ineligible to receive reservation benefits. Conversely, those who are less financially stable will be eligible to receive reservation benefits. 

Creamy layer's foundation
The second backward classes commission, also known as the Mandal commission, proposed the concept of creamy layer classification for OBCs. A notification regarding a reservation of 27% for socially, economically and educationally backward groups was passed by the government in 1990 in order to provide aid to them. In the case of Indira Sawhney v. UOI, the apex court upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs and the exclusion of the creamy stratum, which was challenged. 
Following the Supreme Court's ruling, an expert committee was established under the leadership of retired Justice R.N. Prasad to establish the criteria for determining the gelatinous layer.
In 1993, the Department of Personnel and Training published a list of individuals from a variety of income brackets who were unable to take advantage of the reservation benefit for their children.
The creamy layer concept excluded a small number of OBCs from being a part of the larger OBC group for whose upliftment, reservation was introduced. These small OBCs weren’t allowed to use the reservation benefit and would be ineligible for the same. Among this category, the personnel of government entities and PSUs were also included.
The exclusion was based on the income wealth test, which is applicable to the offspring of individuals with a gross annual income exceeding Rs. 8 Lakhs P. The same also applies to the individuals’ holding positions in PSUs and other governmental organisations for a period of three consecutive years.

Historical Context
The Government of India Act was enacted in the year 1919, around the time of the first world war and this had established the foundations upon which the reservation policies in India were built upon. The British enacted a substantial quantity of legislation during this period, despite their greater focus on Europe than on India, with the intention of facilitating the development of the Indian Territory. 
The Government Act of 1919 had addressed a number of minorities-related concerns, including the creation of communal electorates, and also made major changes within the government institutions. 
The Montague-Chelmsford reforms were the subject of scrutiny by the Simon Commission in 1927, following the Act of 1919. It was after a thorough analysis and investigation of the province and its people, that their delegates had suggested combining separate electorates and giving seats to the poor classes, as they were unable to vote. 
A roundtable discussion was held in London in 1931 to discuss and assess the Simon Commission's findings, the suggested amendments, and the procedure for incorporating them into the new constitution. There were numerous Indian delegates representing a variety of interests. Prime Minister Ramaswamy Macdonald presided over the conference.
The issue of minority was left unresolved in the conference due to the strong opposition of Mahatma Gandhi and Congress to the appeal for a separate electorate for depressed classes, despite the existence of distinct electorates from B.R. Ambedkar.
The reservation policy developed even more than it had in the pre-independence period, and the post-independence era saw a dramatic change in the system. The constituent assembly that had created and established the reservation policy was led Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The Indian constitution contains numerous articles that were specifically designated for this purpose. 
India was a nation with a highly rigid caste-based hierarchical structure, in which the higher castes reaped the majority of the benefits while the lower castes were despised by the higher castes. The majority of the population was economically, socially, educationally, and politically disadvantaged. The Schedule caste, schedule tribes, and other backward classes were the three categories into which the backward classes were classified. 
In June 1932, Prime Minister Ramsey Macdonald of Britain implemented the "communal awards," which mandated that Muslims, Sikhs, Indian Christians, Anglo-Indians, Europeans, and the untouchables each receive their own representation. The backward classes were assigned a certain number of seats to be filled by election from designated constituencies. Only voters from the impoverished classes were eligible to vote, and their voting rights were restricted owing to their image as being untouchables in India.
The reservation process, which began in the 2nd century B.C., was evident in the historical facts and evidence. The superior castes were granted caste-based reservation privileges over the working class. Absolute privileges were granted to the higher strata in all profitable and respectable professions and provisions. 
The lowest social class had no choice but to engage in menial jobs. The Manusmiriti's reservation system, mentioned much about the caste system and it depicts how the higher castes, the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas, etc, had exercised their control over the individuals belonging to the lower caste and had exploited them. 
The Constitution of India was drafted and introduced after India had gotten independence in the year 1947. The drafters of the constitution had given priority to the problems and the needs of the backwards classes. This was when Article 46 was introduced into the constitution. 
According to Article 46, the state is required to protect the educational and economic interests of the disadvantaged people and prevent social injustice and exploitation. It is also responsible for giving particular attention to fostering their well-being. 
Many additional articles were incorporated to further empower the underprivileged in addition to Article 46. This was considered the most effective approach to rectifying the error that had been repeated for centuries, as they were the group that were oppressed the most all this while.
Despite the fact that the reservation policy is an exception to the equality norm, it is still regarded as a critical component of equality. The reservation policy for marginalized groups is one aspect of promoting equality. The recommendation given by the Mandal commission has led to the incorporation of the other backward classes into the reservation system, alongside the existing reservation of about 15% for the SCs and STs in educational institutions.
Nevertheless, the public continues to depend on reservation, despite the fact that the country has been independent for 59 years. The reason the percentage is lesser is that those who have previously benefited from reservation and have made progress are continuing to receive it, rather than that the underprivileged have not made progress. This group of individuals that have made progress economically and are now more privileged than before are known as the "creamy layer."
Reservations in favour of the backward classes (BCs) were implemented in a significant portion of the country prior to independence. Hunter commission was appointed to compromise the presidency areas and the princely states south of the Vindhayas. Jyortirao Phule demanded that all individuals receive free and compulsory education, as well as proportional representation in government positions. 
In 1891, there was a demand for the reservation of government positions, as there was a movement against the recruitment of non-natives into public service, which overlooked qualified native individuals. Shahu Maharaj implemented reservations in Maharashtra in 1901, including those for non-Brahmins and backward classes, as early as 1902.
For providing education and easing out its access, Shahu Maharaj had opened many hostels in the Kolhapur area in order to facilitate the same. Additionally, he ensured that all individuals were provided with suitable employment, irrespective of their social status. Also, Shahu Maharaj had actively advocated for caste system free society in India, and he had campaigned for eradication of untouchability and was vocal about the same 
The notice of 1902 had mandated a 50% quota in services for marginalized classes in the state of Kolhapur. This marks the first formal implementation of reservation for the disadvantaged groups in India. The implementation of reservations in 1909 aimed to provide advantages to certain castes and groups that were not adequately represented in the British government. Prior to Indian independence, there were many more changes that either supported or opposed reservations. 
Substantial alterations were implemented in support of the Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes subsequent to the event of independence of India. Subsequently, The Mandal commission was introduced, and its purpose was to assess the conditions of the socially and educationally disadvantaged sections. Prior to the proclamation of Indian independence, the commission did not possess precise statistics about the position of a certain sub-caste on reservation.

Constitutional provisions
Article 15 of the Indian Constitution provides protection to Indian people from discrimination by the State based on variables such as religion, race, sect, sex, and place of origin. This protection is ensured by sub-clauses (1) and (2) of Article 15. The article stipulates the right to equality regardless of the social class a person belongs to and also, it gives the right equal access to public areas, which prohibits any form of restriction on any individual based on any of the aforementioned factors and the use of public spaces.
There are certain exemptions and the same are stipulated in Article 15(3), (4), and (5) and it basically underscores the provision that the State is permitted to establish distinctive provisions for women and children under the initial exception. The second and third exceptions grant the State the authority to establish special provisions for the socially and educationally underprivileged sectors of the nation, as well as the Schedule castes and scheduled tribes.

At first glance, Article 15(4) may appear to be a general provision that safeguards any form of beneficial discrimination in the form of special provisions for the benefit of the classes mentioned. Nevertheless, discriminatory provisions of this nature may be invalidated as absurd in the circumstances, in addition to the question of when a specific class can be legitimately considered a "backward class." 
It may appear that articles 15(4) and 15(5) violate Article 14 (right to equality); however, this is not the case, as protective discrimination is also a facet of equality. Equality is a fundamental aspect of the Indian Constitution, and any treatment of equals unequally or unequally would violate the fundamental structure of the Constitution.
The objective of Article 16 of the Indian Constitution is to ensure that all citizens have the same opportunity to secure public appointments and employment. The initial two clauses of the Article explicitly stipulate that no Indian citizen shall be subjected to employment discrimination. These clauses establish the foundation for equal employment opportunities by prohibiting discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, caste, gender, place of birth, or any other factor.
The State is authorized to enact legislation to ensure that the disadvantaged classes of citizens are adequately represented in the services of the State, including the reservation of posts in the government sector or employment. This is stipulated in Clause (4) of Article 16. The central government maintained that the reservation in the promotion of SCs and STs should not be altered or affected, as the Indra Sawhney case pertains exclusively to the backward classes.
Nevertheless, the Parliament was able to establish reservation for SCs and STs in promotion posts by enacting the 77th Amendment Act, 1995, which included clause 4-A in Article 16 of the Constitution. This merely meant that the reservation in promotion in government positions would persist even after the verdict in the Mandal case.
The Indian Constitution was amended in 2000 with the 81st Amendment to include Clause (4-B) under Article 16, which came after Clause (4-A). The purpose of adding this provision to the Constitution was to avoid the accumulation of unfilled vacancies from the previous or preceding year, specifically for eligible candidates from the SEBC category. The purpose of this particular provision was to ensure that such vacant positions are not included in the 50% reservation policy for SCs, STs, and OBCs in the year following that.
Similarly, Article 16(4) grants the state the authority to enact legislation for the safeguarding of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). Articles 15(4) and 16(4) address the existing societal inequities that are seen in practice. Justifying the preference given to socially and economically disadvantaged groups is necessary to achieve true equality. 
Articles 14, 15, and 16 establish the concept of protective or positive discrimination as an aspect of equality. Article 15 (4) and 16 (4) provide the basis for India's reservation policy. However, allocating an unreasonably large proportion of seats at any technical school exclusively for each of the backward classes would be invalid, since it would undermine the intention of the Article by placing the general public at a disadvantage.

Origins Of the Creamy Layer Concept
In the seminal case of State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas [1976 AIR 490], the Supreme Court established the term 'creamy layer' while maintaining the policy of reservations in promotions. Justice Krishna Iyer issued a warning regarding the potential for affluent individuals from backward castes to monopolize reservation benefits, which could potentially undermine the intended support for the weakened members of the same groups who would be unable to access these benefits. 
The above findings by the court, even though were not immediately put into exercise or became binding by law, still it did highlight and emphasized upon the 'creamy layer's' concept and its notion.
In 1992, the Supreme Court addressed the Mandal Commission Report (1980), which had advocated for reservations for Other Backward Classes  in Central Government positions and Public Sector Undertakings, in the seminal case of Indira Sawhney v. Union of India. In 1991, the government under VP Singh had introduced a policy that had reserved 27% of government jobs and positions along with other job opportunities for the OBCs.
There were objections and the same were upheld by the nine-judge panel and it was also emphasized and stated that the individuals coming under such 'creamy layer' shouldn’t be receiving the reservation related advantages. The Supreme Court recognized the creamy layer as those who belong to the Other Backward Classes and have made considerable social and economic advancements. 
The court considered these individuals to be on par with any member of the forward classes in terms of their level of development. Regarding the criteria for removing individuals from reserves, it was pointed out that economic considerations should not be the only element considered. 
However, money might be used as a measure of social standing if economic success necessarily results in social progression. The court cited instances of socially astute persons, such as IAS, IPS, and other officials in the All-India Services, who should be exempted from reservation privileges.
The notion of the creamy layer was further considered by the Supreme Court of India in the aforementioned case of Indira Sawhmey, in the hearing that took place in the year 1999. It was highlighted by the Court that the right to equality would be infringed, and discrimination would take place if the advantages of reservation were not provided to the persons who were the most disadvantaged within the backward classes without the execution of the creamy layer concept.
There was emphasis upon the individuals belonging to the creamy layer and being privileged within the marginalised community and it was stated that individuals from the backward class who were employed in higher government services, such as the IAS and IPS, were socially and economically advanced and, thus it can’t be said that they are in need of special privileges under the reservation policy. Consequently, they were stated to be ineligible for reservation benefits.
After the acknowledgement of the recommendations of the commission's the central government went on to reserve 27% of seats and positions in the central government services and issued the same in the Office Memorandum. 
The SC went on to determine in their ruling that the said reservation shouldn’t apply to creamy layer of OBCs. There was a commission that was established by the government which was to be headed by Justice Ram Nandan Prasad and the purpose of the same was the determination of the individuals falling in the creamy layer category among the OBCs.
The recommendations made by the commission were acknowledged and received an official backing.
Following this, the Central Government had issued an order outlining the criteria and conditions for the exclusion of OBCs from the Creamy Layer. These standards and procedures are still employed till date.

Criterion For Creamy Layer
Families with an annual income over Rs 8 lakh are categorized as part of the creamy layer. The government often revises this income threshold. Furthermore, progeny of officials in both Group A and Group B services are excluded.
Furthermore, those who come from privileged backgrounds, including those whose parents are professionals such as doctors, engineers, and lawyers, and who have significant wealth and high social status, are also considered part of the wealthy demographic. Furthermore, families that own extensive parcels of agricultural property that exceed certain thresholds are also considered part of the privileged class.
Individuals belonging to the creamy layer are disqualified from receiving the reservation advantages designated for Other Backward Classes in several domains such as government employment and educational establishments.
The individuals of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe are not included within the concept of 'creamy layer' as of now and they are eligible for all the reservation benefits that the government provides, irrespective of their financial conditions. The objective of this strategy is to enhance the circumstances of these communities, which have historically faced substantial economic and social disparities.

The Supreme Court’s Decision
In the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Davinder Singh & Ors., the Honorable Supreme Court had addressed the long-standing issue of sub-categorization within Scheduled Castes which was there with the intention of implementing and providing reservations to the required individuals. In the following case, the application of Articles 14 to 16 and article 341 of the constitution were called into question and the challenge its comprehension was the main issue in the case.

Primary Issues
The main concern in this case was around the question of whether sub-classification within Scheduled Castes is permissible according to the Constitution of India. The petitioners advocated for the subdivision of the SC category in order to guarantee that reservation advantages are extended to the most marginalized subgroups within the backward categories.
On the other hand, the respondents argued against the sub- classification and stated that the same goes against the principle of equality as highlighted by the Constitution and it weakens the uniformity of the Scheduled Castes, which is affirmed by the President under Article 341.

Appellants Argument
The appellants, which include several state governments, said that sub-classification within SCs is necessary to attain substantive equality. They hypothesized that the absence of sub-categorization results in the concentration of reservation advantages among the more privileged parts within the SC category, hence depriving the most disadvantaged groups of sufficient representation. 
The appellants had presented thorough evidence and had demonstrated the discrepancies throughout the SC community, based upon this they had contended that sub-classification would be beneficial in addressing these imbalances. Further, they had cited prior rulings and constitutional provisions that uphold the state's authority to enact specific measures for the progress of socially and educationally disadvantaged groups, including the possibility of additional sub-categorization.

Respondents Argument
The respondents had contended that the practice of sub-classification within the SC community would be violative of the constitutional provisions and that the same would contravene the concept of equality before the law and equal protection of the law, as enshrined by Article 14. Their reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh was significant. 
The ruling said that sub-classification within Scheduled Castes is not allowed since it undermines the uniformity of the group identified by the President under Article 341.The respondents said that the Constitution regards individuals of the Scheduled Castes as a cohesive and indistinguishable collective when it comes to the implementation of quotas and reservation. They further had stated that any kind of sub-categorization would lead to unfair discrimination within the group.

Analysis by the Court
The Supreme Court started its study by conducting a comprehensive scrutiny of the development of reservation rules in India, highlighting the need of striking a balance between nominal equality and real equality. The Court observed that the principle of legal equality, which applies equal treatment to all people, does not always result in practical or substantive equality, particularly for historically disadvantaged groups such as the SCs.
The Court acknowledged that the basic goal of reservation is to give equal chances for individuals who have experienced social and educational disadvantages.
The Indra Sawhney case that was cited in the court, the SC had analysed the same and had stated in reference to it that the court in that case had carefully reviewed the guidelines established and the same held that the reservations for OBCs should not include the concept of 'creamy layer' so as to guarantee that the advantages of reservation are received by those who actually need them. 
The Court had determined similarities between the need for the exclusion of the creamy layer in Other Backward Classes and the need for sub-classification within Scheduled Castes (SCs) in order to attain genuine equality.
In addition, the Court analysed the particular clauses of Articles 14, 15, 16, and 341. Article 14 ensures that everyone is treated equally under the law and receives equal protection from the laws. Meanwhile, Articles 15 and 16 permit the state to create specific measures to promote the progress of socially and educationally disadvantaged groups. 
The President has the authority and power to decide which caste would be recognized as a 'scheduled caste' under the Article 341. Moreover, in the present case it was seen as to whether the provisions under the article allow for sub classification, and it was concluded that it wasn’t prohibited. 
The court had analysed the data that was present, and this was done with the intent to comprehend and understand the differences and gaps that existed within the SC category. The history of the caste and the data along with it was analysed for the said purpose. 
In the absence of sub-classification, the more developed sections of the SCs may be granted exclusive access to the benefits of reservation, while the most disadvantaged individuals are left without adequate support. The Court concluded that sub-classification is an essential mechanism to guarantee that the advantages of affirmative action measures are directed towards those individuals who are most in need of them.

Held
The Supreme Court has officially validated the legality of sub-categorization within the Scheduled Castes. The Court established that sub-categorization is permissible to provide fairness and to ensure that the most disadvantaged groups within the SC category benefit from reservation privileges. It was further stated by the bench that in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah, the Court had revisited its prior decision and had changed it.
Moreover, it was said that the President's power to identify Scheduled Castes under Article 341 did not prohibit the state from establishing more sub-categories to address inequalities within the SC group. Thus, it was emphasized by the court that the main purpose of reserves is to uplift persons who are the most disadvantaged, and sub-classification is a legitimate approach to achieve this goal.

Various Other Cases Involving Reservation Policies
The main contention in the case of M. Nagaraj V Union Of India [8 SCC 212 196] case was regarding the government's four constitutional amendments — the 77th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1995, the 81st and 82nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 2000 and the 85th Constitutional Amendment Act of 2001 and that they should be invalidated due to the reason that they were established to undermine the decision of the court given in the Indra Sawhney Case .
The constitutional validity of all four amendments was upheld by the five-judge Bench in the Nagaraj case. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's subsequent two validations in this case were contentious. The court had initially stated that state doesn’t need to establish reservations for SC and ST community for the purposes of promotions as there was no requirement for the same.
Moreover, it was also declared that in the case that the state wishes to establish such provisions upon its discretion then the same should adhere to the Article 335 and it should collect data and survey the population of the area to gauge the unfairness or the underrepresentation faced by the community’s people in the work sector. 

Secondly, the Nagaraj ruling altered the Court's previous stance from the Mandal case, in which it had excluded the concept of the creamy layer for SCs and STs, limiting it to OBCs. The Nagaraj decision emphasized that the State must ensure that the reservation provision does not exceed the ceiling limit of 50%, contradict the creamy layer principle, or perpetuate reservations indefinitely, even if it has compelling reasons for their existence. Consequently, the Supreme Court expanded the definition of the creamy layer to include the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes populations.
The Mandal case verdict, which categorized SCs and STs as the most marginalized and disadvantaged groups, contradicts the Centre's plea for the Court to reassess its stance on these matters. As a result, it is often assumed that there is no requirement for the plight or the underrepresentation that is being faced by the SCs and STs to be demonstrated once they are a part of the Presidential List as per Article 341 and 342 of the constitution. 
Parliament is the sole entity that has the authority to modify the specified List, which delineates the SCs and STs in each state and Union Territory. Furthermore, the Indra Sawhney case did not implement the concept of the creamy layer.
In the case of Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta [AIR 2018 SC 4729], the court clearly said that it did not desire to send the aforementioned problem to a bigger tribunal.
The Court's ruling in the Nagaraj case struck down the obligation for governments to acquire quantifiable evidence on the social and economic disadvantages of SCs and STs while giving quotas in promotions. Nevertheless, states are still required to provide relevant data that demonstrates the inadequacy of SCs and STs' representation in the cadre.
The court had upheld and reiterated the decision taken in the Nagaraj case, which was regarding the creamy layer principle, according to which the privileged individuals belonging to the SC/ ST community were prevented from reaping the benefits of the reservation policies. The Court determined that the creamiest members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes communities had to be excluded from the benefits of reservation in government services in order to preserve the benefits from the policy and limit them for the people that are backward even within their communities.
For this reason, the people who attain privileges through economic growth or any job position, the ones who enter into the creamy layer, shall be deemed ineligible from attaining the special privileges through the reservation policies. This ensures fair distribution of opportunities and benefits. 
The Court also observed that it would be impossible to enhance the conditions of the weaker groups if only a small portion of the class were able to secure and maintain every desired position in the public sector, thereby leaving the remainder of the class in the same state as before.
The government is currently requesting that the Supreme Court reconsider its decision in the Jarnail Singh case in light of the milky layer principle, as it was recently overturned.
Reservation provides sufficient positive discrimination to promote the interests of economically and socially marginalized groups in society.
 Moreover, the principle of creamy layer is essential to differentiate between the people who are progressing socially and economically and the ones who are still regressed. This ensures that the benefits of the reservation policies are being given to only those people who are in need of social representation and an economic push. 

Political Reactions to The Order
Prakash Ambedkar, the president of the Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA), criticized the Supreme Court Constitution Bench’s judgment that permitted states to sub-classify the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in order to make sure the reservations reach to the neediest groups of people within these communities. He argued that the ruling contradicted the principles of reservation outlined in the Constitution.
As the grandson of B R Ambedkar, Prakash Ambedkar emphasized that any sub-classification should be undertaken by Parliament rather than by states, warning of the ruling’s adverse implications by deeming it as a central matter rather than the state’s matter
Ambedkar remarked that the Supreme Court's decision was a triumph for those advocating for sub-classification, but it lacked the proper process. He asserted that states are not competent authorities to conduct such sub-classifications, which should be the prerogative of Parliament. In addition, he had also raised a question regarding the foundation of the doctrine of sub categorization, and the purpose of the same was to provide a space within the marginalised communities so as to give them fair and equal representation. 
Another question that was posed by Ambedkar was as to how the dominance of one particular group in the general category would would be addressed with and he further argued that there should equal and fair representation for individuals of both the general and reserved categories. Regarding this, Ambedkar had also called for a national strategy to think and implement measures regarding the same. 
Chandrashekhar Aazad, founder of the Bhim Army and chief of the Aazad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), expressed the need to review the full judgment and the dissenting opinion, highlighting concerns about potential violations of Article 341 and the absence of a socio-economic caste survey.
He questioned if the parties to the lawsuit really understood the suffering caused by discrimination. He also brought up concerns over the application of the current reservation regulations, which include lateral entry and reservation in promotions. Aazad suggested financial assistance programs to improve the lives of socially disadvantaged families.
Shambhavi Choudhary, the Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) MP from Samastipur, deemed the judgment unfair as it introduced the concept of the creamy layer, which applied only to OBCs, into SC/ST reservations. She cautioned against separating reserves based on several criteria, stressing that reservations were intended for social representation rather for economic backwardness. The Samajwadi Party MP from Lalganj, Daroga Prasad Saroj, said that a caste census was necessary to make sure that representation matched population proportions.
The CPM called on the government to include backward sections within the SCs in affirmative action, while Bahujan Samaj Party chief Mayawati opposed the sub-classification, likening it to an "Emergency-like" situation. She asserted that atrocities against SCs and STs affected them equally as a group and opposed any form of sub-classification. 
Chandra Bhan Prasad, a Dalit writer and activist had criticized the court's order and had labelled it as a strategy to divide Dalits. On the other side, the Lok Janshakti Party, which is headed by Chirag Paswan, had announced their plans to seek a review of the order.

Political parties such as the Congress and the BJP took a measured approach, first gathering
public opinion before deciding on a formal response. The ruling, which sought to address state-specific problems including quota demands among Dalit communities, was supported by the chief ministers of Telangana and Karnataka as well as by former Karnataka CM Basavraj Bommai. 
However, the idea to include creamy layer criterion into SC reservations raised further concerns. This criterion, which was formerly exclusive to OBCs, sparked concerns that it will restrict quota advantages to those in the sub-categorized SC bloc who pass the economic barrier, therefore affecting their presence in public employment.

Public's Reaction and Way Forward
The decision has received positive responses from across the country from the public. It is being said that the exclusion of the affluent segment from Scheduled Castes would guarantee that the most marginalized populations would receive quota benefits. Amogh Sagar, a counsel at the Patna High Court, stated that the ruling was well-received by society. This was due to the fact that it enabled a more equitable distribution of resources, ensuring that those who were true beneficiaries of affirmative action received it.
Nevertheless, he emphasized that the government should have taken the initiative to assist the castes that were falling behind within these categories. Further, he highlighted and emphasized upon the significance of sub-classification with the aim of maintaining equity and the establishment of a fair society, as the laws should be tailored to the requirements of the citizens.
There were critics that had opposing views, and they had contended that decision could present many problems. Lawyers from New Delhi, one of them being Shivani Verma voiced opposing views, arguing that reservations need to be used to help people learn skills and then stop. While the ruling could benefit the really disadvantaged class, it might also make competition in the broader category more intense.
 She observed that the judgment would have a beneficial effect on underprivileged SC/ST individuals by excluding the luxurious layer and allowing the genuine underdeveloped communities to benefit.
Subhajit Naskar, an assistant professor at Jadavpur University, expressed his vehement opposition to the judgment, describing it as unconstitutional and disrespectful to marginalized communities. He contended that the court's decision disregarded the experiences of SC/ST individuals who have attained been promoted to better positions as they still are subjected to
caste discrimination.
Pa. Ranjith, a Dalit activist, asserted that caste is a socio-cultural identity that is not influenced by economic status. He also argued that the creamy layer concept in SC/ST categories undermines affirmative action efforts to promote social justice. He also criticized the bench's perspective for perpetuating further exclusion rather than expanding quotas to reflect demographic realities, arguing that reservations are already insufficient, resulting in underrepresentation.
Furthermore there can be significant sociological and policy ramifications that can arise from the Supreme Court's decision in question, especially in light of its emphasis on the differences that exists between the individuals from the SC community residing in urban or metropolitan regions and those individuals residing in the rural areas. Also, due to the ease of access to jobs and education in cities, the exclusion of the creamy layer could be simpler there. A bigger problem can arise in the identification of individuals belonging to such creamy layer and their exclusion, this problem might get even worse in the rural areas due to lack of resources to address the same.
It would be expected of the states and the government to conduct thorough and comprehensive analysis and studying of the data in order to identify such percentage of individuals that fulfil the criteria to be called a part of the creamy layer.
Such a procedure will include the conduction of periodic demographic survey and analysis of the population of that area and further, it would also include the collection of the requisite data of the various such sub communities in order to keep a track of the socio-economic changes of the same.
Experts in constitutional law differed in their judgments about the judgment's legitimacy and possible challenges. Some saw it as a step toward full equality, while others worried that it would make the reservation system worse and further isolate certain communities.
Advocated of Social justice had shown concerns about how the ruling in question would affect underprivileged communities. While some believed that excluding the creamy layer would benefit the most disadvantaged, others were concerned that it would only worsen already-existing inequalities within SCs.
Affirmative action's future rests on maintaining a careful balance between meritocracy and the advancement of true equality. During a speech at the parliament, Ambedkar had opposed the presence of time bound reservation and had emphasized on the need for a more long-term plan to give fair representation to the marginalized community and promoting people based on merit rather than their caste. For ensuring that the requirements of the marginalized and backward groups are properly addressed, affirmative action laws must be consistently reviewed and enhanced.

Current Scenario and Way Forward
While it is undeniable that the reservation system has helped India's underprivileged populations, a large proportion of the population either does not know about these advantages or lives in places without the necessary infrastructure to access them. It is crucial to recognize that reservations don't work by themselves to further their growth. Although reservations play a vital role in elevating the status of marginalized groups, they are not the only option.
 The Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, including the right to free education, but it is crucial that these rights be applied to everyone. In addition, the caste system must be abolished as it is the root cause of ongoing inequity in many parts of the country. The foremost objective should revolve around the complete eradication of the reservation system and in doing so, ensuring that equality is maintained among the citizens of India.
The current situation of SCs and STs has improved as a result of reservations; however, they continue to experience unequal treatment in certain regions due to their inferior caste status. Certain measures must be implemented to monitor the situation to ensure that the benefits of the reservation policy are received by the appropriate individuals.
 Excluding advanced sections of SCs and STs from claiming reservations would increase the number of opportunities available to the less advanced sections. The government is required to update the current lists by excluding those that no longer necessitate reservations and including those that are still underprivileged. This modification will not raise the demand for a greater quota; rather, it will retain the current proportion of reservations.
In order to guarantee seats or jobs in organizations that would not otherwise hire people from lower castes, the reservation system was put in place. It is the responsibility of the government to plan out strategies and implement the in order to assist the most disadvantaged members of society. It is crucial to stop the powerful or rich from abusing reservations since doing so would undermine the program's objective. 
The government should prioritize the development of their capabilities rather than providing them with undue advantages, and the delicate stratum should be excluded from reservations. Furthermore, it is imperative to implement awareness campaigns regarding the reservation policy in order to inform those who are opposed to it of its significance for the underprivileged and impoverished segments of society, who may be oblivious of such policies.

Conclusion

The recent decision made by the Supreme Court on the concept of the "creamy layer" and the allowance of sub-classification within Scheduled Castes community is a significant step forward in the direction of achieving substantive equality. In addition, the court had also taken note of the gaps that existed within such communities and the same were depriving the individuals of such communities of fair and equal lifestyles. Keeping the same in mind the SC had urged the adoption of affirmative action programs that are more focused and effective.
In its decision, the court unanimously had agreed to extend the concept of 'creamy layer' which a was earlier a practice that was exclusively exercised within the OBC community, to be extended to the SC community as well. 
The said decision by the court demonstrates its commitment to guaranteeing that benefits of reservation are distributed to such individuals within the community that are actually in need. Even though the said decision is an encouraging one, yet for it to be a truly useful, there is a need for a thorough plan of action and sharp execution to prevent any discrepancies. 
Take Away Points
Sub-classification of SCs: The Supreme Court has permitted states to sub-classify SCs in order to more effectively allocate reservation benefits to the most marginalized sections within the community.
Expansion of the creamy layer concept: The creamy layer principle, which was previously implemented in OBCs, has been extended to SCs in order to prevent the concentration of benefits among more privileged sections.
Equilibrium between affirmative action and equality: The court underscored the necessity of maintaining a balance between the objectives of elevating historically disadvantaged communities and the principles of equality.
Practical Approach: The ruling emphasizes upon the idea of data collection and surveys with regards to identifying the people who belong to the marginalized communities and further determining the inequalities that people face within the community in order to come up with practical solutions for the same.
Ongoing challenges: One of the challenge regarding the sub-classification is the accurate implementation by the government. There is a need for a long-term action plan and the same should be such that it involves careful planning to bring about a positive change and also to avoid any obstacles that arise so as to ensure that equal benefits are given to all the individuals.
Political Debate- There are various political responses that are arising with respect to this decision. There are mixed views about the same amongst the political leaders in India. Amongst other issues, one of them being contented is regarding the criterion for identifying the creamy layer inside SCs and the same needs to be properly addressed and must be precisely specified to prevent arbitrary exclusions.

Frequently Asked Questions
●    What decision did the Supreme Court make in the recent case State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh & Ors.?

The Supreme Court affirmed the sub-classification of the Scheduled Castes in this case. The Court emphasized the need of barring the 'creamy layer' of the SCs from receiving quota benefits, which are designed for the really disadvantaged sectors. The seven-judge panel's verdict was predominantly in favor of applying the creamy layer concept to SCs, with Justice Bela Trivedi dissenting.

●    What is the "creamy layer" concept, and how does it relate to Scheduled Castes (SCs)?

The 'creamy layer' concept is a term that denotes the economically and socially affluent members of a distant community who are not eligible for reservation benefits in order to guarantee that these benefits are distributed to the genuinely disadvantaged members. This concept was initially implemented for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). However, the Supreme Court in this case recommended that it be extended to Scheduled Castes (SCs) in order to guarantee genuine equality.

●    Why did the Supreme Court recommend that the 'creamy layer' exclusion be applied to SCs in the most recent judgment?

The Supreme Court suggested that the 'creamy layer' exclusion be extended to SCs in order to prevent socially and economically affluent members of the community from monopolizing reservation advantages. Justices like BR Gavai and Vikram Nath argued that this would ensure that the most disadvantaged SC community members would obtain the intended benefits of affirmative action, in line with the equality provisions of the Constitution.

●    What is the problem with the sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes?

Sub-categorization within Scheduled Castes is permissible, as the Supreme Court has recently ruled, in order to guarantee that reservation benefits are distributed to the most marginalized members of the community. Sub-categorization's potential effects, are something that needs to be pondered upon. Critics argue and contend that the aforementioned would encourage further splits within the SC community and that it might be a complex and challenging procedure to discover and classify sub-groups. Furthermore, there are concerns regarding the potential influence on the overall reservation quota.

●    What are the main elements of the subcategorization ruling from the Supreme Court?

The need for substantive equality is the foundation for the Supreme Court's decision to permit subcategorization within Scheduled Castes. The court recognized that, in the absence of subcategorization, the benefits of reserve may be concentrated among the wealthier segments of the SC community, thus harming the most disadvantaged groups. The decision emphasizes the need of taking particular action to support the most marginalized members of society.