'Reservation Not Only Based On Economic Status' : Centre Opposes Plea In Supreme Court For Income-Based Sub-Quota Within SC/ST/OBCs

The Union Government has opposed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking directions to introduce an income-based sub-quota within reserved categories, contending that reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) is founded on historical and social backwardness and not merely economic status.

In a counter affidavit filed through the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, the Centre argued that the petition seeks judicial directions to frame a policy on reservation, which falls within the executive domain and cannot be mandated through a writ of mandamus.

The petitioners have sought directions to the Union Government to evolve a more equitable reservation policy by introducing income-based preferences within SC, ST, OBC and EWS categories and by creating sub-classifications to ensure that economically weaker persons within each reserved category receive priority in the distribution of reservation benefits.

Opposing the plea, the Centre submitted that the constitutional scheme governing identification of Scheduled Castes under Article 341, Scheduled Tribes under Article 342 and socially and educationally backward classes under Article 342A does not permit alterations based solely on economic criteria. It explained that inclusion in these lists is based on historical, social and educational backwardness, with Parliament alone being empowered to amend the lists notified by the President.

The criteria for inclusion in the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, and Socially and Educationally Backward Class lists are based on historical, social, and economic backwardness. Scheduled Castes face historical disadvantage from untouchability, while Scheduled Tribes exhibit distinct cultures, geographical isolation, and backwardness. Socially and Educationally Backward Classes are identified by social, educational, and economic disadvantages, along with a lack of representation in services. These criteria are not spelt out in the Constitution but have become well established. Thus, the identification of Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs)/Other Backward Classes (OBCs) is based on historical and social criteria like caste, tribe, and social backwardness, not solely on economic status.

The Centre emphasised that the criteria for inclusion in SC, ST and OBC lists have evolved through constitutional provisions, commissions such as the Kalelkar and Mandal Commissions, and parliamentary enactments. It asserted that these categories are identified on historical and social criteria like caste, tribe and social backwardness, "not solely on economic status."

Creamy layer does not apply to SC/STs

Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in Indra Sawhney, E.V. Chinnaiah, M. Nagaraj and Ashoka Kumar Thakur, the Union argued that the principle of excluding the "creamy layer" has been developed in the context of OBC reservations and is not applicable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The affidavit reproduces observations from Indra Sawhney stating that exclusion based purely on economic advancement would undermine the concept of social backwardness, and notes that the judgment expressly confined that discussion to OBCs.

The affidavit further relies on E.V. Chinnaiah to submit that any exclusion from the SC list can only be brought about by Parliament under Article 341(2), and not through judicial directions or executive action. It also contends that M. Nagaraj did not hold that the creamy layer principle applies to SCs and STs, and that Ashoka Kumar Thakur clarified that the principle is confined to OBC reservations.

The Centre additionally submitted that, except in matters of reservation in education and public employment, several welfare schemes for SCs, STs and OBCs already incorporate means tests to ensure benefits reach deserving beneficiaries. It argued that any proposal to introduce income-based preferences within reservation would require a comprehensive empirical study of socio-economic data concerning beneficiaries of reserved categories.

Terming the writ petition "misconceived," the Union argued that it raises no enforceable constitutional issue under Article 32 and effectively seeks a judicial direction to the executive to frame policy in a particular manner. It urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition with costs.

Case : Ramashankar Prajapati & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. | W.P.(C) No. 682/2025