PolitySocial Justice
News 5 of 22

Centre Tells SC Creamy Layer Cannot Apply to SC/ST Quotas, Cites Historical Disadvantage

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link
09 Aug 2026
~2 min
Source: Indian Express
Key Data:1992 Indra Sawhney2008 Ashoka Kumar Thakur2005 E V Chinnaiah2024 SC judgmentArticles 341, 342Article 32
Bodies:Supreme CourtParliamentPresident of India
Practice MCQs from today's news ▸
What This Article Covers

1.Centre files affidavit opposing creamy layer for SC/ST quotas in Supreme Court.

2.Argues SC/ST discrimination is historical and not economic, unlike OBCs.

3.Invokes constitutional separation of powers and previous judgments (Indra Sawhney, etc.).

The Big Picture
Prelims · HighMains · High

The Centre has opposed extending the creamy layer principle to SC/ST reservations, arguing that historical discrimination based on untouchability cannot be equated with economic backwardness. The affidavit also asserts that any change in reservation policy is Parliament's domain, not the courts. This is critical for understanding the distinction between SC/ST and OBC reservation criteria.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Key JudgmentIndra Sawhney (1992) – creamy layer for OBCs only
Constitutional ArticlesArticles 341, 342 (SC/ST lists)
PetitionerAshwini Kumar Upadhyay
2024 SC RulingPermitted sub-classification of SC/ST

1-Minute Revision

  • ›Key Judgment: Indra Sawhney (1992) – creamy layer for OBCs only
  • ›Constitutional Articles: Articles 341, 342 (SC/ST lists)
  • ›Target this Data: The 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment introduced creamy layer for OBCs only.
  • ›Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court, Parliament (for policy changes).
  • ›Target this Legal Point: Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution.

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

Q1Static LinkageEasy

Which constitutional articles empower the President to notify the initial lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes?

Q2Statement-basedHard

Consider the following statements:

1. The Centre has opposed the application of the creamy layer principle to SC/ST reservations.

2. The 1992 Indra Sawhney judgment introduced the creamy layer principle for SC/STs.

3. The 2024 Supreme Court judgment permitted sub-classification of SC/STs.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMedium

In which year was the Indra Sawhney judgment delivered by the Supreme Court?

Q4Application/ImpactMedium

What is the primary argument of the Centre against applying the creamy layer principle to SC/STs?

All 15 MCQs ▸
You finished this topic
Explore Related Topics
Related Current Affairs
Polity Current Affairs

Govt to SC: Only Parliament Can Extend Creamy Layer to SC/ST; Cites Article 341, E V Chinnaiah Case

The government has told the Supreme Court that extending the creamy layer principle to SC/ST is a policy decision for Parliament alone. This reaffirms that reservation for SC/ST is based on historical social criteria, not just economic status, and the creamy layer concept currently applies only to OBCs.

Polity Current Affairs

SC's March 11 Creamy Layer Judgment: Centre Seeks Clarification for 100 OBC CSE-2025 Candidates

Centre has approached SC seeking clarification on its March 11 judgment that ruled income cannot be the sole criterion for creamy layer among OBCs. The plea concerns 100 candidates selected in CSE since 2016 but rejected due to creamy layer criteria. The government warns retrospective application could disrupt CSE-2025 training and allocation.

Polity Current Affairs

Centre Seeks SC Exemption for CSE 2025, 2026 from OBC Creamy Layer Income Test Retroactivity

The Centre has urged the Supreme Court to keep CSE 2025 and 2026 out of the Rohith Nathan judgment's retrospective operation, allowing the older OBC creamy layer income test to continue. It warns that retrospective application would hit 3.7 lakh OBC recruitments since 2016 and trigger widespread litigation across Railways, Banks, Posts and paramilitary.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Sends Notice to Centre on Plea to Deny Perks to Judges Who Resign to Avoid Removal

The Supreme Court has sought the Centre's response to a petition arguing that constitutional functionaries (including judges) who resign to avoid a transparent removal process should be denied retirement perks. This issue gains traction after Allahabad HC Judge Justice Yashwant Varma resigned amid a cash scandal and removal proceedings.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Rules on OBC Creamy Layer Income Test: Salaries Excluded, Centre Seeks Clarification on Retrospective Impact

The Supreme Court in March 2026 ruled that while determining OBC creamy layer status, income from salaries and agriculture must be excluded from the income/wealth test. The Centre now seeks clarification, arguing retrospective implementation from 2012 is 'extremely difficult' and would cause a cascading effect on recruitments and admissions.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Split Verdict on CEC/EC Appointment Act, 2023; Matter Referred to CJI for Constitution Bench

A two-judge Supreme Court bench has split on whether to refer the challenge to the CEC and ECs (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 to a five-judge Constitution Bench. With Justice Dipankar Datta disagreeing with Justice S C Sharma, the case now goes to the CJI for constituting a larger bench. For aspirants, this is a direct link to Article 324, the Anoop Baranwal verdict, and the independence of the Election Commission.

Polity Current Affairs

AP High Court Declares Three-Capitals Petitions Infructuous; Amaravati Now Sole Capital Under AP Reorganisation (Amendment) Act 2026

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has deemed all petitions against the proposed three-capitals model as infructuous after Parliament amended the AP Reorganisation Act, 2014, making Amaravati the sole capital by law. This ends a long-standing political and legal battle, with implications for state governance and federal structure.

Polity Current Affairs

Article 249 Extended to J&K via 1954 Order Amendment Amid Suspended Assembly

This 1986 event shows how the Centre used Article 249 to legislate for J&K during President's Rule, highlighting the constitutional mechanism for central intervention in state subjects. Essential for understanding J&K's pre-370 abrogation dynamics and the application of Article 249 in national interest.