The Supreme Court of India has refused to entertain a petition seeking the exclusion of children of Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and Indian Police Service (IPS) officers from the benefits of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) reservation in Madhya Pradesh. The petition was filed by Santosh Malviya after the Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to hear the case in December 2024, stating that only the Supreme Court could address the matter in light of a recent ruling.
In its response, the Supreme Court clarified that the opinion regarding the exclusion of the “creamy layer” from SC and ST quotas was merely a suggestion made by one of the judges in a seven-judge bench ruling from August 2024, in the State of Punjab versus Davinder Singh case. The bench emphasized that the matter of excluding the “creamy layer” falls under the legislature’s jurisdiction.
Justice Bhushan R. Gavai, who was part of the seven-judge bench, explained that while the issue had been discussed, no formal decision had been made. He referred to the bench’s suggestion that sub-classification within the SC and ST communities is permissible, and the exclusion of the “creamy layer” remains a decision to be made by lawmakers. Justice Gavai, along with Justices Vikram Nath and SC Sharma, supported the view that individuals from the SC and ST communities who have attained social advancement—such as those who become IAS or IPS officers—should be excluded from reservation benefits.
The ruling stems from an earlier recommendation made in the August 2024 ruling, which stressed that once a member of a designated backward class ascends to a high status, such as becoming an IAS or IPS officer, they are no longer considered socially disadvantaged. The bench had suggested that the state must devise a policy to identify the “creamy layer” within the SC and ST communities to ensure that only the truly disadvantaged members benefit from affirmative action.
Despite the bench’s suggestions, the petitioner’s lawyer, Siddharth R. Gupta, was allowed to withdraw the plea. He indicated plans to approach the state government with a representation on the matter. The court also clarified that the decision on exclusion should be taken by the legislature, not the judiciary.
The debate around the creamy layer in the context of SC and ST reservations remains an ongoing issue in Indian legal and political discourse, with some advocating for periodic review to ensure that the benefits reach those in need while preventing the exploitation of the system by more affluent individuals.
