"It is then argued for the Respondents that 'one swallow doesn't make the summer', and that merely because a few members of a caste or class become socially advanced, the class/caste as such does not cease to be backward. It is pointed out that Clause (4) or Article 16 aims at group backwardness and not individual backwardness. While we agree that Clause (4) aims at group backwardness, we feel that exclusion of such socially advanced members will make the 'class' a truly backward class and would more appropriately serve the purpose and object of Clause (4). (This discussion is confined to Other Backward Classes only and has no relevance in the case of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes)."

AG : so this discussion is on creamy layer, whether the individual income or the income of the class as whole and the parameters which would define whether the cord and the thread between the class and the individual has snapped or not. these are the only two discussions where they exclude SCs otherwise Indira Sahwney no where excludes the SCs for the purposes of subclassification