Income can't be sole basis for determining creamy layer status among OBCs: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has declared that income cannot solely be used to determine whether a candidate falls within the category of creamy layer or the non-creamy layer of the Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan pointed out, a comprehensive reading of the 1993 Office Memorandum, along with the clarificatory letter of October 14, 2004, revealed that income from salaries alone cannot be the sole criterion to decide whether a candidate falls within the creamy layer.

"The status as well as the category of post to which a candidate’s parent or parents belong is essential. The exclusion under Categories I to III of the Schedule is status-based rather than purely income-based, reflecting the policy understanding that advancement within the governmental service hierarchy denotes social progression independent of fluctuating salary levels,'' the bench said.

The court emphasised, salary income cannot be mechanically aggregated in a manner that defeats the constitutional objective articulated in Indra Sawhney judgment related to the Mandal Commission, which introduced the concept of creamy layer among the OBCs.

The court's judgment came March 11 on appeals filed by the Union government against the High Courts of Delhi, Madras and Kerala, which allowed pleas by successful civil services aspirants against their exclusion on OBC categories for being creamy layer in view of income of their parents employed in PSUs, banks or the private sector.

The bench held that treating employees of private entities and PSUs differently from government servants, when deciding whether their children are entitled to reservation, amounts to hostile discrimination.

Dismissing the appeals, the bench said, The object of excluding the creamy layer is to ensure that socially advanced sections within the OBCs do not appropriate benefits meant for the genuinely backward; it is not to create artificial distinctions between equally placed members of the same social class.”

The court stressed that the creamy layer status of OBCs cannot be determined solely on the basis of parental income.

"If similarly situated persons are subjected to differential treatment without a constitutionally sustainable basis, such action would fall foul of Article 14 (equality) of the Constitution,'' the bench said.

The court emphasized, while caste may be an indicator of historical disadvantage, it cannot be treated as the sole determinant of backwardness.

"The exclusion of the creamy layer among the backward classes is not a matter of mere policy preference but a constitutional imperative intended to ensure that the benefits of reservation reach those who are socially and educationally backward in the true sense of the phrase," the bench said.

The principle seeks to prevent relatively advanced segments within the backward classes from siphoning off the advantages of affirmative action, so that the objective and purpose of the constitutional scheme of affirmative action, of which reservation is a reflection, are adhered to, the bench added.