On Thursday, the Supreme Court brought in the concept of the creamy layer with regard to SC/ST categories; the concept has applied in OBC policy so far. The quota debate will get more charged and complex, as it has with every significant court ruling. Here’s a short guide to the dates and judgments that have shaped the discourse so far

Churning of the Cream

November 1992, Indra Sawhney versus Union of India:

Eight out of the nine judges in the case argued that the creamy layer must be excluded from reservations made for OBC’s. Three principal reasons were given. First, for a group to be eligible for reservations it must be a class. A class, in order to be a class must be homogenous; if the variations within it are vast it loses its character as a class. Second, unless the privileged within these classes were excluded, they would reap most of the benefits of reservation, defeating its purpose. Third, retaining groups who had transcended backwardness within a backward class, would be tantamount to treating unequals equally and violate Article 14.

The Court directs Centre and states to appoint Commissions to identify creamy layer within four months.

• August 1995: Kerala Government passes an Act that states that “there are no socially advanced sections in any Backward Classes who have acquired the ability to compete with Forward Classes.” The Act allows for the existing system of reservations to continue, with retrospective effect.

• August 1997: Supreme Court appointed Committee submits report on creamy layer. Report Not Implemented.

... contd.