New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that identifying a ‘creamy layer’ of backward classes cannot be based purely on economic reasoning.“..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 said, according to LiveLaw.In the order, Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose quashed a Haryana government notification on how to identify a ‘creamy layer’ that would be excluded from OBC reservations.“We quash the notification dated 17.08.2016, giving liberty to the State Government to issue a fresh notification within a period of 3 months from today after taking into account the principles laid down by this Court in Indra Sawhney-I and the criteria mentioned in Section 5(2) of the 2016 Act for determining ‘creamy layer’,” the bench said.The notification in question said that that children whose parents earn up to Rs 3 lakh per annum can benefit from all affirmative action policies and reservations. Children whose parents earn between Rs 3 lakh and Rs 6 lakh per annum will be eligible for the reserved seats that remain. Those from OBC communities whose parents earn more than Rs 6 lakh per year will be designated as the ‘creamy layer’, and excluded from the benefits.This notification, the Supreme Court has now ruled, is a “flagrant violation” of the Indira Sawhney-I judgment. Even Section 5(2) of the Haryana Backward Classes (Reservation in Services and Admission in Educational Institutions) Act, 2016 noted that ‘creamy layer’ has to be identified on the basis of social, economic and other relevant factors.The court, however, clarified that admissions already made using this notification will not be disturbed.The Punjab and Haryana high court too had earlier said that the notification’s sub-classification – of under Rs 3 lakh and between Rs 3 lakh and Rs 6 lakh per annum – was unconstitutional. There was no data to support such sub-classification within the non-creamy-layer, the court had held.
