Creamy Layer in OBC Reservation

Basic Concepts

• Reservation in India:
  • Based on Articles 15(4), 16(4), and 340 (Constitution) → for socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs), SCs, and STs.
  • Aim: Correct historical injustices, ensure representation in education, employment, and politics.
• Creamy Layer (CL):
  • Concept introduced by Indra Sawhney Case (1992).
  • Ruling: Reservation benefits should not go to the “advanced sections” among OBCs, i.e., those with higher income, social capital, or government positions.
  • Purpose: Ensure benefits reach the most disadvantaged, not the relatively privileged within OBCs.

Relevance : GS 2(Governance ,Social Issues)

Indra Sawhney Judgment (1992)

• Upheld 27% OBC reservation as per Mandal Commission.
• Directed exclusion of “creamy layer”:
  • Children of high-ranking officials, professionals, industrialists, etc.
  • Applied only to OBCs, not SCs/STs.
• Set income/position-based tests for exclusion.

DoPT Guidelines (Post-1993)

• Income threshold set at ₹1 lakh annually (1993).
• Revised multiple times → now ₹8 lakh per year (since 2017).
• Categories excluded:
  • Children of Group A/All India Services officers.
  • Children of armed forces officers above Lt. Colonel.
  • Professionals/business owners with substantial income.
• Importantly: Wealth (property ownership) is not considered, only income/profession.

Issues in Implementation

• Anomalies:
  • Children of low-paid Group A officers automatically excluded (though not necessarily “affluent”).
  • Children of public sector employees treated differently from private-sector counterparts.
  • Lack of uniformity across state vs central services, teaching vs non-teaching posts.
• Certificates issued under old criteria sometimes still used, even after revisions.
• Court rulings in 2015 & 2023 highlighted confusion and inconsistencies.

Current Proposal: “Equivalence”

Aim → uniform criteria across ministries, PSUs, universities, and states.

• Key Features Proposed:
  • Equivalence of Pay Scales: Link OBC creamy layer exclusion to pay level (not just income).
    • Eg. Assistant Professors (entry-level university teachers) = Group A equivalent → counted in creamy layer.
  • Non-teaching staff in universities: Equated with state government non-teaching positions.
  • Executives in PSUs:
    • If income > ₹8 lakh, they fall under creamy layer.
    • But ceiling for private sector employees = ₹8 lakh income, irrespective of position.
  • Employees of government-funded institutions: Should follow same service rules/pay-scales as government employees.

Likely Beneficiaries

• Children of lower-rank Group A officers (earning just above ₹8 lakh but not wielding high social capital).
• Employees of state universities & aided institutions who previously faced unequal treatment.
• OBC candidates denied earlier due to lack of uniform application of creamy layer norms.

Broader Analysis

• Positive Aspects:
  • Creates fairness, removes anomalies.
  • Prevents arbitrary exclusion.
  • Ensures genuine backward classes continue benefiting.
• Concerns:
  • Income ceiling (₹8 lakh) may still be too high, letting affluent OBCs corner benefits.
  • Wealth/property ownership still ignored.
  • Equivalence across diverse institutions (state, PSU, universities) is administratively complex.
  • Risk of dilution of merit vs social justice balance.

Policy & Political Dimensions

• Creamy layer debate often resurfaces during elections → political sensitivity.
• Expanding creamy layer definition = balancing act between social justice and appeasing middle-class OBCs.
• Recommendations by NCBC, DoPT, and Social Justice Ministry under discussion.

Comparative Insights (Global)

• US: Affirmative action debates also face “class vs race” questions (should rich Black families get same benefit as poor?).
• South Africa: Similar debates on whether upper-class Black Africans should benefit from racial quotas.
• India’s creamy layer = unique model of mixing caste + class filters.

Way Forward

• Regular revision of income ceiling linked to inflation.
• Include wealth/property criteria, not just income.
• Separate criteria for rural vs urban OBCs.
• Improve data transparency in issuance of creamy layer certificates.
• Gradually shift towards socio-economic deprivation index (composite indicators).