38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, March 16, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Concept of Creamy Layer cannot be applied to SC/ST: Centre to SC

By LawStreet News Network      17 August, 2018 12:00 AM      0 Comments
Concept of Creamy Layer cannot be applied to SC/ST: Centre to SC

On Thursday (August 16th, 2018), the Centre told the Supreme Court of India that "creamy layer" concept cannot be applied to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe communities to deny them the benefits of quota in government promotions as they have suffered for centuries.

Appearing before a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Attorney General K K Venugopal argued that there is no judgment which says that well-established people of the Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) community can be denied quota benefits by applying creamy layer concept.

The top law officer said that even if some people of the community have come up, the mark of caste and backwardness is still attached to them, and the question of excluding a certain class of SC/ST has to be decided by the President and the Parliament and this exercise is not open to the judiciary.

The government wants a larger Bench of the Supreme Court to set aside its 12-year-old verdict in the case of M Nagaraj v. Union of India, as it is a roadblock to its authority to introduce quota in promotions in favour of SC/ST communities as per Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution of India.

Earlier, on July 11th, 2018 the apex court had refused to pass any interim order against the verdict and said that a five-judge Bench would first see whether it needs to be examined by a seven-judge Bench or not.

The M. Nagaraj verdict of 2006 mandates that the government cannot introduce quota in promotion for SC/ST persons in public employment unless they prove that the particular Dalit community is backward, is inadequately represented and such a reservation in promotion would not affect the overall efficiency of public administration.



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

tarun-holi-murder-case-delhi-police-पर-क्यों-नाराज़-हैं-पड़ोसी-law-street-journal
Trending Videos
Tarun Holi Murder Case: Delhi Police पर क्यों नाराज़ हैं पड़ोसी? || Law Street Journal

In this ground report on the Tarun Holi Murder Case, the team of Law Street Journal reaches Uttam Nagar, Delhi, where a shocking incident during Holi celebrations allegedly led to the death of a young man, Tarun. The dispute reportedly began after a Holi balloon thrown by a child accidentally hit a woman, which later escalated into a violent confrontation.

10 March, 2026 07:33 PM
itat-mumbai-deletes-1159-crore-addition-under-section-69a-brokers-papers-and-retracted-statement-held-insufficient
Trending Judiciary
ITAT Mumbai Deletes ₹11.59 Crore Addition Under Section 69A; Broker’s Papers and Retracted Statement Held Insufficient [Read Order]

Mumbai ITAT deletes ₹11.59 crore addition under Section 69A, holding broker’s papers and a retracted statement insufficient to prove alleged on-money receipts.

11 March, 2026 04:41 PM
prosecution-is-not-persecution-re-examining-the-constitutional-role-of-the-state-in-indias-criminal-justice-system-under-the-crpc-and-the-bnss
Trending Vantage Points
Prosecution is Not Persecution: Re-Examining the Constitutional Role of the State in India’s Criminal Justice System under the CrPC and the BNSS

Advocate Udit Arora examines how prosecution under CrPC and BNSS remains a constitutional duty—balancing justice, fairness, victim rights and protection of the innocent.

11 March, 2026 05:16 PM
sc-dismisses-mcgms-challenge-to-arbitral-award-holds-conduct-of-party-relevant-to-decide-jurisdictional-challenge
Trending Judiciary
SC Dismisses MCGM’s Challenge to Arbitral Award, Holds Conduct of Party Relevant to Decide Jurisdictional Challenge [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court dismisses MCGM’s challenge to arbitral award, holds party conduct relevant while deciding jurisdictional objections under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act.

13 March, 2026 12:31 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email