Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by Ashoka Kumar Thakur challenging the constitutional validity of the criteria laid down by the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh for determining the creamy layer for the purpose of exclusion from backward classes in the context of reservation in public services. The case arose in the aftermath of the Nine-Judge Bench decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, which authoritatively interpreted Article 16(4) and mandated exclusion of the creamy layer from backward classes. The court examined whether the impugned state criteria conformed to the principles laid down in that decision. The respondent State defended the criteria, arguing that merely because a few members of a caste or class become socially advanced, the class as such does not cease to be backward, as clause (4) aims at group backwardness and not individual backwardness. The court, however, extensively referred to the Mandal judgment, quoting the opinions of Sawant, Sahai, and Jeevan Reddy JJ. It reiterated that the benefits of reservation often get monopolized by the affluent sections of backward classes, leaving the genuinely backward sections deprived. A means-test or economic ceiling was held to be imperative to skim off the affluent section and ensure that benefits reach the poorest and weakest. The court noted that the basis of exclusion should not be purely economic unless economic advancement necessarily implies social advancement; the income limit must be realistic and signify social advancement. It also referred to the Government of India Office Memorandum dated September 8, 1993, which provided 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes and excluded certain categories such as children of constitutional post holders and higher civil servants, observing that such persons are socially advanced and their children do not need reservation. The available judgment text ended before recording the final operative decision, but the court's analysis focused on the constitutional necessity of excluding the creamy layer as per Indra Sawhney.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Reservation for Backward Classes - Creamy Layer Exclusion - Constitution of India, Article 16(4) - The Nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney held that socially advanced members of a backward class, i.e., the creamy layer, must be excluded from the class to ensure that benefits of reservation reach the truly backward. The court reiterated that Article 16(4) aims at group backwardness but exclusion of such advanced members makes the class a truly backward class and serves the object of the provision (Paras Not mentioned). Held that exclusion of creamy layer is essential. B) Reservation Policy - Means-Test for Identifying Creamy Layer - Economic Criterion - Constitution of India, Article 16(4) - The court emphasized that a means-test by which creamy layer is excluded is imperative to skim off the affluent section of backward class because richer members often monopolize reservation benefits. An economic ceiling to cut off the backward class for job reservations is necessary to benefit the needy sections. The basis of exclusion should not be merely economic unless economic advancement is so high that it necessarily means social advancement, and the income limit must be realistic and signify social advancement (Paras Not mentioned). C) Reservation Policy - Social Advancement as Ground for Exclusion - Occupants of Constitutional Posts and Higher Services - Constitution of India, Article 16(4) - The court referred to the Government of India Office Memorandum dated September 8, 1993, which excluded persons/sections mentioned in its Schedule from reservation benefits, such as children of constitutional post holders, Group A/Class I officers of All India Central and State Services (Direct Recruits), and others. It observed that if a member of a designated backward class attains such a position, his social status rises and his children are no longer socially disadvantaged, so they should be excluded from reservation (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criteria laid down by the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh for determining the creamy layer for the purpose of exclusion from backward classes are constitutionally valid under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, in light of the principles laid down in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.
Law Points
- Article 16(4) aims at group backwardness
- creamy layer must be excluded from backward classes
- means-test imperative to skim off affluent section
- economic ceiling necessary to benefit needy sections
- basis of exclusion should not be merely economic unless it signifies social advancement
- socially advanced members like IAS/IPS officers' children to be excluded
- exclusion of creamy layer is a social purpose.
