The Union Government has informed the Supreme Court that India’s reservation framework is rooted in historical and social backwardness rather than economic status alone, asserting that any decision to apply income thresholds or exclude the creamy layer among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes rests exclusively with Parliament.
In a counter-affidavit filed by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the government urged the top court to dismiss a petition seeking guidelines to establish income-based preferences and sub-quotas within reserved categories. The ministry stated that introducing economic criteria or altering existing quota structures would require a comprehensive review, empirical socio-economic data, and legislative sanction.
Government Opposes Judicial Intervention In Quota Policies
Highlighting the constitutional separation of powers and judicial precedent, the Centre argued that the judiciary should refrain from directing the executive to formulate reservation policies without empirical findings or a parliamentary mandate. The response noted that policy creation in this domain falls within the legislative and executive spheres.
The affidavit was submitted in response to a petition filed on June 15, 2026, which sought directions to institute a merit-cum-means system for government employment and educational admissions. The petitioners requested that income-based preferences be integrated into reservations for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
Additionally, the petition urged the court to direct the framing of rules that would classify economically weaker individuals within SC and ST categories as a sub-class entitled to higher priority in selection processes. The petitioners cited the Supreme Court Constitution Bench ruling in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, which permitted the sub-classification of SCs and STs for reservation purposes.
Legal Precedents And Constitutional Grounds
Addressing the plea, the government stated that criteria for identifying SCs, STs, and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) are well-established through social and historical parameters rather than income alone. Scheduled Castes face historical discrimination linked to untouchability, Scheduled Tribes are recognized by geographical isolation and distinct cultural traits, and SEBCs are identified through social, educational, and economic disadvantages alongside underrepresentation in state services.
Citing the 2005 Supreme Court ruling in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Centre noted that a five-judge bench reserved the authority to exclude the creamy layer from Scheduled Castes solely to Parliament under Clause (2) of Article 341 of the Constitution.
The affidavit further pointed out that the creamy layer doctrine was specifically created for OBC quotas. Referring to the April 10, 2008 Constitution Bench decision in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, the Centre stated that the apex court explicitly clarified that creamy layer exclusions do not apply to SC and ST reservations.
The government added that existing welfare and developmental programs outside reservation in institutions and government services already incorporate means-testing to ensure aid reaches eligible beneficiaries.
