Examine why successive Central governments have resisted extending the 'creamy layer' concept to SC/ST reservations despite judicial observations favouring it.

The creamy layer doctrine, evolved in Indra Sawhney (1992) to exclude advanced sections among OBCs, has never been operationalised for SCs/STs — the government has told Parliament that "as regards SC/ST reservation, at present, there is no concept of creamy layer" [1]. Successive governments have held this line despite repeated judicial prodding.

Judicial observations favouring extension

• Jarnail Singh (2018) extended the creamy layer test to SC/ST reservation in promotions.
• In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024), a seven-judge Bench (6:1) overruled E.V. Chinnaiah (2004) and permitted sub-classification; Justice B.R. Gavai urged states to "evolve a policy to identify the creamy layer among the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and exclude them" [2].

Why the Executive has resisted

• Distinct constitutional basis: SC/ST status flows from Presidential notification under Articles 341/342, a closed list alterable only by Parliament [3], unlike OBC backwardness which is assessed socially and economically through the DoPT's 1993 creamy-layer formula [4].
• Nature of the disadvantage: SC/ST reservation compensates for untouchability and social ostracism, which economic advancement does not erase; an income-type filter is conceptually mismatched.
• Non-binding character of the observations: Gavai's remarks were part of a separate opinion, with the Court itself leaving the policy call to the Executive and Legislature [2].
• Political and administrative costs: any exclusion risks being read as diluting a constitutionally protected safeguard, and no reliable caste-wise socio-economic dataset exists to identify "advanced" households.

Consequence Benefits do tend to concentrate among relatively better-placed families; the government's preferred remedy is therefore sub-classification backed by empirical data, which redistributes within the quota rather than removing anyone from it [2].

The resistance thus reflects a considered constitutional distinction, not mere political caution. A credible way forward lies in evidence-based sub-categorisation, periodic outcome audits of representation, and an informed parliamentary deliberation — securing the substantive equality that Articles 15 and 16 promise while keeping the safeguard intact.