38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, January 12, 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

wrong-bail-orders-alone-without-evidence-of-corruption-cannot-justify-removal-of-judicial-officer-sc
Trending Judiciary
Wrong Bail Orders Alone, Without Evidence of Corruption, Cannot Justify Removal of Judicial Officer: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that wrong bail orders alone cannot justify removal of a judicial officer without proof of corruption, misconduct, or extraneous considerations.

06 January, 2026 07:43 PM
divorced-muslim-woman-can-seek-maintenance-under-crpc-even-after-receiving-amount-under-muslim-women-protection-act-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Divorced Muslim Woman Can Seek Maintenance Under CrPC Even After Receiving Amount Under Muslim Women Protection Act: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Kerala High Court holds that a divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even after receiving amounts under the 1986 Act.

06 January, 2026 08:19 PM
delhi-hc-full-bench-settles-bsf-seniority-dispute-rule-of-continuous-regular-appointment-prevails
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Full Bench Settles BSF Seniority Dispute; Rule of ‘Continuous Regular Appointment’ Prevails [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court Full Bench rules BSF seniority is based on date of continuous regular appointment, rejecting claims for antedated seniority due to delayed joining.

06 January, 2026 08:45 PM
borrowers-cannot-invoke-writ-jurisdiction-to-compel-banks-to-extend-one-time-settlement-benefits-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Borrowers Cannot Invoke Writ Jurisdiction to Compel Banks to Extend One-Time Settlement Benefits: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court holds borrowers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to compel banks to grant One-Time Settlement benefits, as OTS is not a legal right.

07 January, 2026 09:22 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email