Creamy Layer Exclusion From SC/ST Reservation To Be Decided By Executive/Legislature : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea

The Supreme Court recently declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking exclusion of the wards/children/dependents of IAS/IPS/IFS/IRS/Class-I officers serving in Madhya Pradesh (or having MP as domicile but serving in other states/UTs) from the scope of reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in recruitment/selection/appointment processes.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, permitting the petitioner to withdraw his petition, with liberty to take such steps as permissible in accordance with law. It was observed that the issues raised alongwith the prayer for framing of a policy to exclude 'creamy layer' from SC/ST reservation, fell in the ambit of the executive and the legislature.

During the hearing, the counsel for petitioner submitted that the prayers were first made before the High Court. However, the said petition had to be withdrawn, as the High Court was of the view that the issue ought to be raised before the Supreme Court. While informing that recruitments are going on in 21 departments of the state, he prayed for a direction to the State of MP to frame a reservation policy to identify criteria and class of "creamy layer".

In support of the case, the counsel relied on the judgment of a 7-judge bench of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v Davinder Singh and Ors., where 4 judges (Justices Gavai, Vikram Nath, Pankaj Mithal and SC Sharma) supported the view that State must evolve a policy to identify 'creamy layer' among the SC/ST category and take them out of the fold of affirmative action. It was stated that 6 months have passed (since the judgment) without any action being taken by state of MP.

Hearing the counsel, Justice Gavai remarked,

“Reservation is not mandatory. It is for the executive and for the legislature to provide reservation or not. It is an enabling provision. We have given our view taking into consideration the past 75 years...such of the persons who have already availed benefit and are in a position to compete with others should be excluded from reservation. But it is a call to be taken by the executive and the legislature."

When the bench expressed its disinclination to entertain the PIL, the petitioner's counsel highlighted a 'difficulty', saying that the very class of persons whose children are sought to be excluded have to frame the policy. "People who have marched ahead - IAS/IPS - their wards and children should not be given [reservation]. Who is to frame the policy? The very same people. They have not framed it. Eventually intervention of this court will be required", he urged. Justice Gavai replied to the submission by saying that the legislators can enact a law.

Case Title: SANTOSH MALVIYA Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 15/2025