Why in the News
The Supreme Court of India ruled that income alone cannot determine the “creamy layer” among OBCs, and clarified how children of private sector and PSU employees should be treated in comparison with those of government servants. The judgment was delivered by Justices P. S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan.
What is the “Creamy Layer”?
- The concept emerged from the landmark Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).
- It excludes the economically and socially advanced members of the OBC category from reservation benefits.
- Currently, the income ceiling for creamy layer is ₹8 lakh per year.
What the Supreme Court Said
1. Income Cannot Be the Sole Criterion
- The Court held that salary income alone cannot determine creamy layer status.
- The social position and post of the parents must also be considered.
2. Equality Between Government and Private Sector Employees
- The Court addressed discrimination created by a 2004 government clarification:
- Earlier:
- Salary of private sector and PSU employees was counted in income.
- Salary of government employees was not counted.
- The Court ruled this creates “hostile discrimination” between similarly placed OBC candidates.
This violates equality principles under:
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India
- Article 15 of the Constitution of India
- Article 16 of the Constitution of India
What Changes After the Verdict
- Equal Treatment
- Children of PSU and private sector employees will now be assessed similar to government employees, considering the status of the post, not only income.
Benefits for Affected Candidates
- Candidates previously denied OBC status in exams (like the Civil Services Examination) may now receive benefits.
- The Court allowed the government to create supernumerary posts if necessary to accommodate them.
Background of the Issue
- 1993 DoPT guidelines excluded salary and agricultural income while determining creamy layer.
- A 2004 clarification included salary income for private/PSU employees, causing the dispute.
| [2023] Consider the following statements: Statement-I: The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgements that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for maintenance of efficiency of administration. Statement-II : Article 335 of the Constitution of India defines the term ‘efficiency of administration’. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements? (a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I (b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I (c) Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect (d) Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct |
