Reservation: Centre Tells Supreme Court SC, ST, OBC Quotas Can't Be Reworked on Income Alone

The Centre has opposed before the Supreme Court a plea seeking income-based preferences within each reserved category to ensure that the benefits of reservation reach economically weaker candidates among the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).

The Union government said that reservation for SCs, STs and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs)/OBCs is based primarily on historical and social backwardness, and cannot be determined solely on the basis of economic status.

The Centre's opposition to income-based preferences within reserved categories

The government stated that the criteria for inclusion in the SC, ST and SEBC lists are based on historical, social and economic backwardness.

"Scheduled Castes face historical disadvantage from untouchability, while Scheduled Tribes exhibit distinct cultures, geographical isolation, and backwardness. Socially and Educationally Backward Classes are identified by social, educational, and economic disadvantages, along with a lack of representation in services. These criteria are not spelt out in the Constitution but have become well established," it said.

Thus, the Centre maintained that identification of SCs, STs and SEBCs/OBCs is based on historical and social criteria such as caste, tribe and social backwardness, and not solely on economic status.

The government also pointed out that the Supreme Court has previously held that a notification issued under Article 341(1) and Article 342(1), specifying the SC and ST lists, can be amended only by a law made by Parliament.

"In other words, any caste tribe or part of or group within any caste/tribe can be included or excluded from the list of SCs or STs issued under Clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 only by the Parliament by law and by no other authority and it is not open to State Governments or courts or tribunals or any other authority to modify, amend or alter the list of SCs or STs specified in the notification issued under Clause (1) of Article 341 or 342," the Ministry of Social Justice said in its affidavit.

It added that similar provisions have been made for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes through the Constitution (One Hundred and Second Amendment) Act, 2018.

What did the Centre say about the creamy layer for SCs and STs?

Referring to the nine-judge Constitution Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney & Ors v Union of India (1992) and the M Nagaraj case, the government said that, for the purpose of reservation, the principles of the creamy layer are not applicable to SCs and STs.

It further said that in the majority of welfare and development schemes for SCs, STs and SEBCs, there is already a means test to ensure that benefits reach those who actually deserve them.

However, it pointed out that this means test does not apply to reservation in educational institutions and reservation in services under the State.

Centre says reservation policy cannot be changed without empirical study

The government said that introducing income-based preferences within reserved categories would require a broader review of the existing reservation policy.

"Modification of reservation policy, particularly to introduce income-based preferences within reserved categories, should be preceded by a holistic review and thorough empirical study, including socio-economic data of reserved category beneficiaries," it said.

The Centre also explained the existing procedure for notification and the criteria followed for identifying SCs, STs, OBCs/SEBCs and EWS.

Why did the Centre say the plea is not maintainable?

The government opposed the writ petition filed by Ramashankar Prajapati, contending that it was not maintainable in law as it essentially sought a direction, or mandamus, to the executive to frame a policy in a particular manner.

According to the Centre, such a direction would fall beyond the judicial domain.

It therefore urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the plea on the grounds of maintainability and non-justiciability. It said the Court should refrain from directing the executive to frame reservation policies or introduce income-based preferences without empirical data or a legislative mandate.

The government said such an approach would also have to take into account the principles of separation of powers and judicial precedents.

What had the petitioner sought?

The petitioner sought directions to frame policies for a more equitable and just system of reservation in government employment and educational opportunities.

The plea sought equitable distribution of reservation benefits on a merit-cum-means approach, so that economically weaker persons within the reserved categories could receive greater benefit.

The Centre, however, maintained that the primary objective of reservation is to achieve social equality and justice, overcome historical disadvantages and discrimination, ensure economic empowerment and upliftment of marginalised communities, and promote their inclusive participation in education, public services and decision-making processes.

It said the reservation system seeks to provide fair opportunities, reduce economic disparities and foster diversity in governance and academia by addressing historical marginalisation.

Case Title: Ramashankar Prajapati & Anr v Union of India

Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 682 of 2025