"
Creamy layer principle and why it should be applicable on schedule castes and
schedule tribes"
Abstract:
The question is of paramount importance that whether still in 2024 each and
every person falling under a homogeneous group of schedule castes and schedule
tribes irrespective of their current economic, educational or social status
needs reservation or deserves to be uplifted ? hence it becomes significant to
observe the developments country has gone through, especially after the
independence and co-relate it with the reservation policy to increase its
applicability and efficiency in contemporary era.
Here I have discussed about how and why reservation policy was an significant
and essential step to maintain equality and unity in India. Further. The concept
of creamy layer prevalent in India has been explained and why it is important to
be implemented on schedule castes and schedule tribes is discussed by showing
different data and making comparisons, then the information is backed up by
certain case laws by the Supreme court of India and then conclusion has been
derived.
Introduction
Historical background of reservation and its contemporary situation
It is the old age rigid caste system which led to the origin of reservation
policies in India as it divided the society according to the four main castes
which were Brahmans, kshatriyas, vaishyas and shudras. Shudras or later known as
harijans were considered lowest in the hierarchy who just worked as slaves for
the upper three castes and were also treated as untouchables. Even after the
independence of India untouchability and discrimination with dalits was at its
peak which made them socially, educationally and economically backward class
therefore to uplift them it was necessary to reserve some quotas and seats in
jobs, education, legislature etc.
It was B.R Ambedkar who proposed the concept
of reservation in constituent assembly debates and later on many Constitutional
provisions were added to the Constitution of india in order to firm the concept
of reservation. However the policy of reservation was designed as an adhoc
policy for ten years.
But it is continuing and getting extension after the end
of every ten years which led to almost 70 years of positive discrimination and
consequently the evil of untouchability is almost diminished from the Indian
society but caste and class equality all over the territory is still to be
achieved but meanwhile positive impact of reservation can be clearly observed in
the Modern India as many castes among SC's and ST's have become affluent and are
sitting in legislature, bureaucracies, judicial.
On other high governmental
posts moreover many of them have become economically sound as well therefore
this directly focuses on the question of increasing intercaste inequalities
among them along with the politics of casteism which is at its peak leading
towards the over consciousness of caste identity and obstructing the process of
national integration. Moreover, castes have been used as instruments for
maintaining the vote banks of different political parties. Thus, these issues
heavily demands the regulation and alteration of reservation policy as per the
needs of Modern India of 2024.
What is creamy layer?
Creamy layer is a term used in Indian politics to refer to some members of a
backward class who are highly advanced socially as well as economically and
educationally. They constitute the forward section of that particular backward
class – as forward as any other forward class member[1].The term was originally
introduced in the context of reservation of jobs for certain groups in
Indra
Sawhney & Others v. Union of India case in 1992[2].The judgment held that
persons from backward classes who occupied posts in higher services such as IAS,
IPS and All India Services had reached a higher level of social advancement and
economic status, and therefore, were not entitled to be treated as backward.
Such persons were to be treated as 'creamy layer' without any further inquiry
moreover people with sufficient income who were in a position to provide
employment to others should also be taken to have reached a higher social status
and treated as "outside the backward class" and Other categories included
persons with higher agricultural holdings or income from property[3].after this
income ceilings of families under backward classes were fixed for instance it
was 4.5 lakhs in 2008 and then 6 lakhs in 2013 further increased to 8 lakhs in
2017 according to which creamy layer was excluded from the other backward
classes so that reserved seats and quotas provided by the Government of India
shall be enjoyed by the section of the society which is still educationally,
socially and economically weaker of weakest. Thus, a reading of the Indra
Sawhney judgments shows that social advancement, including education and
employment, and not just wealth, was key to identify the 'creamy layer'.
Rationale why Creamy Layer principle needs extension to Schedule castes and
Schedule tribes.
It has been always argued that concept of creamy layer could not be extended to
schedule castes and schedule tribes because economic criteria cannot be the sole
basis to detract the reservation benefits from the individuals however people
under the categorization of other backward classes were also socially and
educationally backward classes but not the economically backward as defined by
The Constitution of India but still concept of creamy layer which works
basically on income of a family making it an economical basis is applicable on
them, this clearly states that Schedule castes and Schedule tribes should not be
a exception to it otherwise it could be a great inequality with the people
falling under other backward classes.
Does children of an class 'A' officer or a
person with millions of rupees worth land or Constitutional functionaries such
as President, judges of the Supreme court and High court, employees of central
and state bureaucracies above a certain level need reservation under schedule
castes or schedule tribes the answer if given by average human intelligence will
be 'NO' because people with such economically as well as socially reputed family
background cannot be backward or untouchable in any such way therefore excluding
them on the basis of income will be totally reasonable as it is with other
backward classes.
Moreover the principle of creamy layer could be applicable on
schedule castes and tribes without making changes to Article 341 and Article 342
of the Constitution of India because there is no need to exclude any particular
caste from the presidential list (which declares certain castes to be considered
under scheduled caste or schedule tribe by power given to central executive-The
President by The Constitution of India) but the purpose is to regulate the
system of reservation so that only affluent groups among them should not eat all
the cake and weakest among them should get benefited and uplifted in order to
maintain equality in society.
Intercaste Inequalities
The other major consequent of not excluding creamy layer fro schedule castes and
schedule tribes is the growing intercaste differences within SC and ST's. For
instance Caste groups such as Jatavs (leatherworkers) in the north, Mahars in
the west, Malas in the south, and Namasudras in the east had a relatively early
exposure to modern education and could make substantial use of the opportunity
offered by reservations as Compare that to the Balmiki community in the north,
traditionally engaged in scavenging Or think of Musahars and Doms in Uttar
Pradesh and Bihar Or Arunthathiyars in Tamil Nadu they still have very limited
access to the education that is needed to take advantage of reservations[4].
Furthermore when the country had recorded a literacy rate of 74 per cent in the
latest census of 2011, the literacy rate for Doms was 16 per cent and for
Musahars, Census 2011 records that of the 20 lakh-plus Musahar community in the
state, there were less than 2,000 graduates — about 0.1 per cent Similar
differences exist among the STs as well because Tribal communities in the hill
states of the north (Himachal, Uttarakhand) and the northeast (Manipur, Mizoram,
Meghalaya, Nagaland) have done much better than their counterparts in the rest
of the country. And then there is the unusual case of the Meenas of east
Rajasthan, who have received disproportionate benefits of ST reservations.[5]
These data clearly depicts how the particular caste groups within the schedule
castes and schedule tribes are dominating over the other just because some
castes were benefitted early due to various factors like their geographical
condition or their relations with certain leaders or freedom fighters at that
time and etc. Consequently there is an urgent need to fix income ceilings and
exclude creamy layer so that 1108 scheduled castes[6] and 744 tribes[7] could be
represented and benefitted equally.
Judicial Pronouncements
The apex court in the Mandal case[8] has very clearly held that the "creamy
layer" has to be excluded from the backward class and To ensure that the most
deserving members of backward classes benefit from job reservations, the
reservation under Article 16(4) is only applicable to those who are not part of
the "creamy layer." This is because the more affluent members of these classes
have been largely taking advantage of the current benefits, leaving the poorer
members to become even poorer[9]. However in this case principle of creamy layer
was applicable only to other backward classes (OBC) but not to schedule castes
and scheduled tribes.
However afterwards in 2007 the Apex court ruled that the basis of reservation
should be quantifiable data depicting how backward a particular class is and how
their representation is not adequate in public employment. Consequently court
introduced the principle of proportionality by ruling that reservation provision
of any state must not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling limit of
50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely[10].
This time concept of creamy layer was extended to schedule caste and schedule
tribes also.
The Centre has put forth two reasons to reconsider the Nagaraj judgment.
Firstly, the requirement for states to provide quantifiable data to demonstrate
backwardness contradicts the Indra Sawhney v Union of India[11] ruling because
this ruling presumes Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to be the most
backward among backward classes, so there is no need to demonstrate their
backwardness again once they are included in the Presidential List under
Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India Secondly, the creamy layer
concept, which has not been applied to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
the Indra Sawhney case, needs to be addressed. hence it should be restricted to
Other backward classes only[12].
Even after the decision of the Constitution bench principle of creamy is still
restricted to the OBC's because even though it was a nine judge bench who gave
decision in Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India but still central
government has demanded a larger bench to overrule the previous decision of not
extending creamy layer principle to SC's and ST's.
Conclusion
These judicial orders clearly depicts the need to diminish inequalities among
schedule castes and tribes which different states are facing because some of
them remain grossly under represented as compared to other schedule castes and
tribe as shown by various reports for instance
in Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Bihar, special quotas were introduced
for the most vulnerable Dalits. In 2007, Bihar set up the Mahadalit Commission
to identify the castes within SCs that were left behind[13].
In Tamil Nadu, a 3% quota within the SC quota is accorded to the Arundhatiyar
caste, after the Justice M S Janarthanam report stated that despite being 16% of
the SC population in the state, they held only 0-5% of the jobs[14].These needs
and demands of sub quota shows that still many groups within the ambit of
schedule castes and tribes are backward therefore it becomes necessary to apply
creamy layer principle in order to represent them adequately throughout all the
territory of India.
End-Notes:
- Rajagopal, Krishnadas (8 December 2019). "Why does government want Supreme Court to reconsider stand on SC/ST creamy layer?". The Hindu.
- "Quota: What does 'creamy layer' mean?". Business Standard. 10 April 2008.
- Krishnadas rajagopal, "why Why does government want Supreme Court to reconsider stand on SC/ST creamy layer?"(The Hindu,8 December 2019)
- Yogendra Yadav, "India needs SC-ST sub-quota. And the Supreme Court just removed one key roadblock"(The Print,9 September 2020)
- Yogendra Yadav, "India needs SC-ST sub-quota. And the Supreme Court just removed one key roadblock"(The Print,9 September 2020)
- The constitution (schedule caste) order of 1950
- The constitution (schedule Tribe) order of 1950
- Indra Sawhney v Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477
- M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 1041 (Lexis nexis , Gurgaon , 8th edn.,2020)
- M Nagaraj v Union of India,(2006) 8 SCC 212 : AIR 2007 SC 71
- AIR 1993 SC 477
- Ananthakrishnan G, "Creamy layer principle in SC, ST quota for promotion: judgments, appeals"(Indian Express,11 December 2019)
- Apurva Vishwanath," The 'quota within quota' debate"(Indian Express,1 september 2020)
- Apurva Vishwanath," The 'quota within quota' debate"(Indian Express,1 september 2020)
Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Vikram Khurmi
Authentication No: AG460175552975-22-0824 |
Please Drop Your Comments