Creamy layer rule row: Policy spirit distorted, court restores balance
When a government clarification strays from the spirit of the policy it is meant to explain, confusion is bound to follow. The Supreme Court recently cleared up one such bureaucratic mess that began more than two decades ago. The issue concerns an Office Memorandum issued in 1993 following the Supreme Court’s verdict in Indira Sawhney (1992). The judgement said the socially advanced ‘creamy layer’ among the other backward classes (OBCs) should be kept out of reservation benefits. However, a clarification issued in 2004 defeated the 1993 policy’s purpose. It created artificial differences between people from the same social class who were in similar positions.
The 1993 order said OBC officers in Group A services, and some Group B officers promoted to Group A before the age of 40, would fall under the creamy layer. It also said children of people holding similar positions in public sector undertakings, banks, universities and the private sector should be treated the same way, once their jobs were found comparable to government posts.
But if such equivalence had not yet been decided, the order provided another method to identify the creamy layer. It set a limit based on residual income or wealth. Residual income meant income other than parental salary and agricultural income. In short, the 1993 policy focused on parents’ status to judge social advancement. Residual income was a secondary test and did not include wages.
Unfortunately, the 2004 clarification changed this understanding. It included salary in the income test for children of people working in PSUs or the private sector when their jobs could not be compared with government posts. The clarification said a person would fall under the creamy layer if parental income or other income exceeded ₹2.5 lakh annually for three consecutive years. Because of this confusion, many civil services candidates who qualified lost the benefit of the OBC quota.
In its recent judgement, the SC strongly criticised this clarification, saying it cannot change the basic policy. It stated excluding someone solely because of parents’ salary, without considering their parents’ position, would be unfair. Even high salaries in Group C or Group D government posts do not make someone part of the creamy layer. Treating people in similar situations differently would go against the principle of equality. The message for India’s bureaucracy is clear: it must always keep the real spirit of policy in mind.