Creamy Layer-Facts

Creamy layer

The creamy layer is a term used in Indian politics to refer to the
relatively wealthier and better educated members of the Other Backward
Castes (OBCs) who will not be eligible for social/ educational benefit
programme by the government from now onwards. The term was introduced
by the Sattanathan Commission in 1971, which directed that the "creamy
layer" should be excluded from the reservations (quotas) of civil
posts and services granted to the OBCs.

Present definition of "creamy layer"

The Supreme Court defines 'creamy layer' by quoting a office memorandum dated September 8, 1993.

"creamy layer" differentiation applies to whom?

The "creamy layer" concept is meant ONLY for the obcs. This concept is
not applied to the unreserved category, scheduled castes category &
scheduled tribes category. Therefore, all non-OBCs will be allowed to
compete for their quota of heavily subsidised govt. seats/ jobs in
their respective category without any consideration of "creamy layer"
concept.

Justice K G Balakrishnan, who is the first SC to become the Chief
Justice of india (without any benefit due to any reservation) stated:
"by excluding those who have already attained economic well-being or
educational advancement, the special benefits cannot be further
extended to them and, if done so, it would be unreasonable,
discriminatory or arbitrary resulting in reverse discrimination.". But
this logic is applied EXCLUSIVELY for OBCs & the logic is not applied
for SCs , STs & the unreserved category seats. The criterion is also
not applicable to minority institutions.

The supreme court also indirectly reserves at least 50 % of seats for
the unreserved category (which includes creamy layer from OBCs & all
forward communities) & any reservation to any other (BC/MBC/SC/ST)
category shall be such that the total reserved seats never exceed 50%
of total. The forward community form around 12% to 46% of population
in the big states of india. No official creamy layer percentage census
is available at present.

Exclusion of creamy layer concept "only" from OBCs - Constitutional validity

There is no mention about the concept of "creamy layer" in the
Constitution & nowhere does it proscribe any directive to exclusively
discriminate OBCs. "All the leaders who work for social justice should work
together to defeat the creamy layer concept" . The exclusion leads to undermining the constitution
itself since "socially backward" and "educationally backward" were the
key words enshrined after thorough delibrations & "economic
criterion(cream concept)" can never be a criterion in determining
reservation policy. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of india & its
constitutional bench have decided to give sanctity to a concept that
thay themselves invented during the course of mandal commission
implementation. Thus india now faces a legislature vs judiciary war
whereby the will of the legislature is undermined by the utopian
concepts/ perception of the supreme court. It is another debate if the
judiciary can impose any policy upon the govt./ the legislature since
Judiciary has no constitutional mandate to initiate policy decisions
which are the sole prerogative of the legislature. Whether a socially
& educationally backward child can be denied the constitutional
upliftment (guaranteed by the constitution) by a bench interpreting
the constitution for the reason that his/ her parents managed to get a
combined yearly income of 4.5 lakh is another pandora's box since the
'exclusion concept' is used to discriminate within OBCs only.

Reaction
All parties welcomed the 27% reservation to socially & educationally
backward communities (OBC) But the creamy layer exclusion has varied
responses from various political formations..Most political parties
are uncomfortable with the rigid criterion for creamy layer concept
although everyone is pleased that 27% quota has got legal sanctity.
"The net result of job reservation for the Other Backward Classes over
the last 15 years and more is that their total representation has
declined to less than 5 per cent. A major factor is the "creamy layer"
concept, which has become an excuse for keeping the backward castes
out.History now repeats itself with the Supreme Court verdict in
favour of denying reservation in higher education institutions to the
creamy layer among the OBCs, he said. The court tried to take away
what Parliament tried to give the OBCs"- mr. sharad yadav, JD(U).

Creamy Layer office memorandum full details

Persons/Sections Excluded from Reservation which constitute Creamy
Layer of the Society

Description of category To whom rule of exclusion will apply to son(s)
& daughter(s) of

I. Constitutional Posts President, Vice-President, Judges of the
Supreme & High Courts,Chairman and Members of UPSC and the state PSC,
Chief Election Commissioner, Comptroller and Auditor-General of India
& all persons holding constitutional positions of like nature.

II. Service Category

A. Group ‘A’/Class I Officers of the All India Central and State Services (Direct Recruits)– (a)if both/ any one of the parents are/ were Class I officers (for at least 5 years if dead); (b) parents, either of whom is a Class I officer and such parents dies or suffers permanent incapacitation and before such death or such incapacitation has had the benefit of employment in any International Organisation like UN, IMF, World bank, etc., for a period of not less than 5 years; (c) A lady belonging to OBC category has got married to a Class I officer, and may herself like to apply for job.

B. Group ‘B’/Class II Officers of the Central and State Services (Direct Recruitment) Son(s) and daughter(s) of – (a) parents, both of whom are Class II officers; (b) parents of whom only the husband is a Class II officer and he gets into Class I at the age of 40 or earlier; (c) parents, both of whom are Class II officers and one of them dies or suffers permanent incapacitation and either one of them has had the benefit of employment in any International Organisation UN, IMF, World Bank, etc., for a period of not less than 5 years before such death or permanent incapacitation; (d) parents of whom the husband is a Class I officer (direct recruitment or pre-forty promoted) and the wife is a Class II officer and the wife dies; or suffers permanent incapacitation; and (e) Parents, of whom the wife is a Class I officer (Direct Recruit or pre-forty promoted) and the husband is a Class II officer and the husband dies or suffers permanent incapacitation; Provided that the rule of exclusion shall not apply in the following cases:-

Sons and daughters of –

(a) Parents both of whom are Class II officers and one of them dies or suffers permanent incapacitation. (b) Parents, both of whom are Class II officers and both of them die or suffer permanent incapacitation, even though either of them has had the benefit of employment in any International Organisation like UN, IMF, World Bank, etc, for a period of not less than 5 years before their death or permanent incapacitation.

C. Employees in Public Sector Undertakings, etc. The criteria enumerated in A and B above in this category will apply mutatis mutandis to officers holding equivalent or comparable posts in PSUs, Banks, Insurance Organisations, Universities, etc., and also to equivalent or comparable posts and positions under private employment, pending the evaluation of the posts on equivalent or comparable basis in these institutions, the criteria specified in Category VI below will apply to the officers in these Institutions. III. Armed forces including Paramilitary Forces (Persons holding civil posts are not included). Son(s) and daughter(s) of parents either or both of whom is or are in the rank of Colonel and above in the Army and to equivalent posts in the Navy and the Air Force and the Paramilitary Forces; Provided that – (i) If the wife of an armed forces officer is herself in the armed forces (i.e., the category under consideration) the rule of exclusion will apply only when she herself has reached the rank of Colonel; (ii) the service ranks below Colonel of husband and wife shall not be clubbed together; (iii) if the wife of an officer in the armed forces is in civil employment, this will not be taken into account for applying the rule of exclusion unless she falls in the service category under item No. II in which case the criteria and conditions enumerated therein will apply to her independently.

IV. Professional class and those engaged in Trade and Industry

(i) Persons engaged in profession as a doctor,lawyer, chartered accountant, income tax consultant, financial or management consultant, dental surgeon, engineer, architect, computer specialist, film artists and other film professional, author, playwright, sports person, sports professional, media professional or any other vocations of like status.

Criteria specified against Category VI will apply (ii) Persons engaged in trade, business and industry. Criteria specified against Category VI will apply. EXPLANATION – (i) Where the husband is in some profession and the wife is in a Class II or lower grade employment, the income/wealth test will apply only on the basis of the husband’s income. (ii) If the wife is in any profession and the husband is in employment in a Class II or lower rank post, then the income/wealth criterion will apply only on the basis of the wife’s income and the husband’s income will not be clubbed with it.

V. Property Owners

A. Agricultural holding. Son(s) and daughter(s) of persons belonging to a family (father, mother and minor children) which owns- (a) only irrigated land which is equal to or more than 85% of the statutory ceiling area, or (b) both irrigated and unirrigated land, as follows:- (i) The rule of exclusion will apply where the pre-condition exists that the irrigated area (having been brought to a single type under a common denominator) 40% or more of the statutory ceiling limit for irrigated land (this being calculated by excluding the unirrigated portion). If this pre-condition of not less than 40% exists, then only the area of unirrigated land will be taken into account. This will be done by converting, the unirrigated land on the basis of the conversion formula existing, into the irrigated type. The irrigated area so computed from unirrigated land shall be added to the actual area of irrigated land and if after such clubbing together the total area in terms of irrigated land is 85% or more of the statutory ceiling limit for irrigated land, then the rule of exclusion will apply and disentitlement will occur.) (ii) The rule of exclusion will not apply if the land holding of a family is exclusively unirrigated.

B. Plantations

(i) Coffee, tea, rubber, etc.

(ii) Mango, citrus, apple plantations, etc. Criteria of income/wealth specified in Category VI below will apply. Deemed as agricultural holding and hence criteria at A above under this category will apply. Criteria specified in Category VI below will apply. C. Vacant land and/or buildings in urban Agglomerations. EXPLANATION:- Building may be used for residential, industrial or commercial purpose and the like two or more such purposes.

VI. Income/Wealth Test Son(s) daughter(s) – (a) Persons having gross annual income of Rs. 1 lakh or above or possessing wealth above the exemption limit as prescribed in the Wealth Act for a period of three consecutive years. (b) Persons in Categories I, II, III and V-A who are not disentitled to the benefit of reservation but have income from other sources of wealth which will bring them within the income/wealth criteria mentioned in (a) above.

EXPLANATION:- (i) Income from salaries or agricultural land shall not be clubbed; (ii) The income criteria in terms of rupee will be modified taking into account the change in its value every three years. If the situation, however, so demands, the interregnum may be less.

EXPLANATION—Wherever the expression “permanent incapacitation” occur in this schedule, it shall mean incapacitation which results in putting an officer out of service.