Supreme Court Strikes Down Haryana Notification Creating Sub-Classification Within OBC Non-Creamy Layer

A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose pronounced the verdict in a batch of petitions challenging a verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

"..the State of Haryana has sought to determine 'creamy layer' from backward classes solely on the basis of economic criterion and has committed a grave error in doing so. On this ground alone, the notification dated 17.08.2016 requires to be set aside", the Supreme Court observed.

The issue was relating to the validity of a notification issued by the State of Haryana. The State Government had notified that the persons having an annual income up to Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) to be the non-creamy layer in the OBC category, and above that of creamy layer.  However, as per circular dated 17.8.2016, preference has been given within the non-creamy layer to persons of category having annual income upto Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs), in the matter of admission in the medical colleges etc.

The High Court, in its judgment delivered on August 7, 2018, held the Government notification making a sub-classification within the non-creamy layer segment as annual income below Rs 3 lakhs and annual income within Rs 3 -6 lakhs as unconstitutional. The High Court held that there was no data to justify the sub-classification within the non-creamy layer.

A division bench comprising Justices Mahesh Grover and Mahabir Singh Sindhu of the High Court observed as follows :

"...once it is accepted that certain categories though identified as backward, will be treated as creamy layer with an income more than 6 lakhs, any further sub classification in the list of backwards without any inputs can be termed to be an arbitrary classification that ensures reverse discrimination which closes the doors of equitable distribution amongst the backward classes....Evidently the social advancement of a caste or a group would have to be identified on an empirical data and it cannot be assumed straightway that those with in income above 3 lakhs would have unshackled the social backwardness ; such an exclusion from within the identified backward classes cannot stand the test of constitutional requirement. The end result is that the State has given a benefit with one hand only to take it away with the other."