Editing Other Backward Class (section)

==Legal disputes==

===Creamy layer and Indra Sawhney vs Union of India===
The term [[creamy layer]] was first coined by Justice Krishna Iyer in 1975 in the State of Kerala vs NM Thomas case, wherein he observed that "the danger of 'reservation', it seems to me, is three-fold. Its benefits, by and large, are snatched away by the top creamy layer of the 'backward' caste or class, thus keeping the weakest among the weak always weak and leaving the fortunate layers to consume the whole cake".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=5862 |title=Supreme Court of India Order |website=The Judgement Information System |access-date=27 October 2015 |archive-date=4 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304054031/http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=5862 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gupta |first1=Anish |last2=Giri |first2=Aaleya |date=12 September 2015 |title=Scourge of Reservation: The Invisible Creamy Layer |url=http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/oped/scourge-of-reservation-the-invisible-creamy-layer.html |url-status=live |newspaper=The Pioneer |type=Op-ed |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150914234705/http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/oped/scourge-of-reservation-the-invisible-creamy-layer.html |archive-date=2015-09-14}}</ref> 1992 [[Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India]] judgment laid down the limits of the state's powers: it upheld the ceiling of 50 percent quotas, emphasized the concept of "social backwardness", and prescribed 11 indicators to ascertain backwardness. The nine-judge Bench judgement also established the concept of qualitative exclusion, such as the "creamy layer".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-order-reserved/|title=Explained: Order reserved|date=23 March 2015|access-date=4 March 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/building-a-just-society/|title=For an equitable society, reservations must be extended to private sector|date=23 October 2015}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/Plea-to-reconsider-judgment-in-Indra-Sawhney-case-of-1992/article14821432.ece|title=Plea to reconsider judgment in Indra Sawhney case of 1992|newspaper=The Hindu|date=23 August 2007|access-date=4 March 2019|via=www.thehindu.com}}</ref> The creamy layer is only applicable in the case of Other Backward Castes and not applicable on other groups like SC or ST. The creamy layer criteria were introduced at Rs 100,000 in 1993, and revised to Rs 250,000 in 2004, Rs 450,000 in 2008, and Rs 600,000 in 2013.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Raise-creamy-layer-to-Rs-10-5-lakh-OBC-panel/articleshow/47155884.cms|title=Raise 'creamy layer' to Rs 10.5 lakh: OBC panel |website=The Times of India|date=5 May 2015 |access-date=4 March 2019}}</ref> In October 2015, [[National Commission for Backward Classes]] proposed that a person belonging to OBC with an annual family income of up to Rs 1.5 million should be considered as minimum ceiling for OBC.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/OBC-panel-backs-off-wont-make-creamy-layer-reservation-criteria-stringent/articleshow/49545470.cms|title=OBC panel backs off, won't make 'creamy layer' reservation criteria stringent |website=The Times of India|date=27 October 2015 |access-date=4 March 2019}}</ref> NCBC also recommended sub-division of OBCs into 'backward', 'more backward' and 'extremely backward' blocs and divide 27% quota amongst them in proportion to their population, to ensure that stronger OBCs don't corner the quota benefits.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/OBC-sub-division-relaxing-creamy-layer-is-a-must-NCBC-tells-govt/articleshow/49532421.cms|title=OBC sub-division, relaxing creamy layer is a must: NCBC tells govt |website=The Times of India|date=26 October 2015 |access-date=4 March 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Raise-creamy-layer-to-Rs-10-5-lakh-OBC-panel/articleshow/47155884.cms|title=Raise 'creamy layer' to Rs 10.5 lakh: OBC panel |website=[[The Times of India]]|date=5 May 2015 }}</ref> In August 2017, NDA government announced the creamy layer ceiling in the OBC category from getting reservation in jobs, has been raised from Rs 6 lakh a year to Rs 8 lakh.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/creamy-layer-income-cap-for-obcs-raised-to-rs-8l-per-annum-says-arun-jaitley/story-Otgdlzn41jjDBrW41MncrK.html|title='Creamy layer' income bar for OBCs raised, new panel for sub-categories|date=23 August 2017|website=Hindustan Times|access-date=4 March 2019}}</ref>

===Supreme Court interim stay===
On 29 March 2007, the [[Supreme Court of India]], as an interim measure, stayed the law providing for 27 percent reservation for Other Backward Classes in educational institutions like IITs and IIMs. This was done in response to a public interest litigation&nbsp;— [[Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India (Supreme Court Case)|Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India]]. The Court held that the 1931 census could not be a determinative factor for identifying the OBCs to provide reservation. The court also observed, "Reservation cannot be permanent and appear to perpetuate backwardness".<ref name=interimstay>{{cite news | title = Supreme Court OBC quota in IITs, IIMs| url = http://in.rediff.com/news/2007/mar/29quota.htm| work = rediff.com| publisher = Rediff.com India Limited| date = 29 March 2007| access-date = 2007-04-01}}</ref>

===Supreme Court verdict===
On 10 April 2008, the Supreme Court of India upheld the government's initiative of 27% OBC quotas in government-funded institutions. The Court has categorically reiterated its prior stand that those considered part of the "[[Creamy layer]]" should be excluded by government-funded institutions and by private institutions from the scope of the reservation policy. The verdict produced mixed reactions from supporting and opposing quarters.

Several criteria to identify the portion of the population comprising the "creamy layer" have been recommended, including the following:<ref name=telegraphcutoff>{{cite news|url=http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080411/jsp/frontpage/story_9123781.jsp|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080412105903/http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080411/jsp/frontpage/story_9123781.jsp|url-status=dead|archive-date=12 April 2008|title=New Cutoff for OBCs|date=11 April 2008|access-date=2008-04-11|work=The Telegraph|location=Calcutta, India}}</ref>
* Children of those with family income above {{INR}} 250,000 a year, and then {{INR}} 450,000 a year {{as of|lc=yes|2008|October}} and now {{INR}} 800,000 a year, should be considered creamy layer, and excluded from the reservation quota.
* Children of doctors, engineers, chartered accountants, actors, consultants, media professionals, writers, bureaucrats, defence officers of colonel and equivalent rank or higher, high court and Supreme Court judges, and all central and state government Class A and B officials should be excluded.
* The Court has requested Parliament to exclude the children of MPs and MLAs as well.

===Supreme Court conclusions from Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India===
{{Unreferenced section|date=November 2021}}
# The Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2006 does not violate the "basic structure" of the Constitution so far as it relates to the state-maintained institutions and aided educational institutions. The question of whether the Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2006 would be constitutionally valid or not so far as "private unaided" educational institutions are concerned, is left open to be decided in an appropriate case.
# The "[[creamy layer]]" principle is one of the parameters to identify backward classes. Therefore, principally, the "creamy layer" principle cannot be applied to STs and SCs, as SCs and STs are separate classes by themselves.
# Preferably there should be a review after ten years to take note of the change of circumstances.
# A graduation (not technical graduation) or professional course deemed to be educationally forward.
# Principle of exclusion of [[creamy layer]] applicable to OBC's.
# The Central Government shall examine the desirability of fixing cut-off marks in respect of the candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) to balance reservation with other societal interests and to maintain standards of excellence. This would ensure quality and merit would not suffer. If any seats remain vacant after adopting such norms they shall be filled up by candidates from general categories.
# So far as the determination of backward classes is concerned, a notification should be issued by the Union of India. This can be done only after the exclusion of the creamy layer for which necessary data must be obtained by the Central Government from the State Governments and Union Territories. Such Notification is open to challenge on the grounds of wrongful exclusion or inclusion. Norms must be fixed keeping in view the peculiar features in different States and Union Territories. There has to be proper identification of Other Backward Classes (OBCs). For identifying backward classes, the Commission set up under the directions of this Court in Indra Sawhney 1 has to work more effectively and not merely decide applications for inclusion or exclusion of castes.
# The Parliament should fix a deadline by which time free and compulsory education will have reached every child. This must be done within six months, as the right to free and compulsory education is perhaps the most important of all the fundamental rights (Art.21 A). Without education, it becomes extremely difficult to exercise other fundamental rights.
# If material is shown to the Central Government that the Institution deserves to be included in the Schedule (institutes which are excluded from reservations) of The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (No. 5 of 2007), the Central Government must take an appropriate decision based on materials placed and on examining the concerned issues as to whether Institution deserves to be included in the Schedule of the said act as provided in Sec 4 of the said act.
# Held that the determination of SEBCs is done not solely based on caste and hence, the identification of SEBCs does not violate Article 15(1) of the Constitution.

===Supreme Court scrapped Jat Reservations in Central OBCs list===
In March 2015, Supreme Court of India scrapped Jat Reservations saying that [[Jat people|Jats]] are not socially and economically backward in reference with [[National Commission for Backward Classes]]' (NCBC) opinion.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://scroll.in/article/714288/the-one-paragraph-from-the-supreme-courts-jat-quota-judgment-that-slams-competitive-backwardness|title=The one paragraph from the Supreme Court's Jat quota judgment that slams competitive backwardness|first=Rohan|last=Venkataramakrishnan|website=Scroll.in|date=17 March 2015 |access-date=4 March 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://scroll.in/article/723177/why-is-the-media-outraging-against-obc-reservations-when-its-the-higher-castes-who-have-cornered-jobs|title=Why is the media outraging against OBC reservations when it's the higher castes who have cornered jobs?|first=Indrajit|last=Roy|website=Scroll.in|date=14 May 2015 |access-date=4 March 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://scroll.in/article/714430/the-daily-fix-supreme-court-reminds-india-that-the-third-word-in-obc-is-class-not-caste|title=The Daily Fix: Supreme Court reminds India that the third word in OBC is 'class' not 'caste'|first=Rohan|last=Venkataramakrishnan|website=Scroll.in|date=18 March 2015 |access-date=4 March 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/jats-put-in-obc-as-per-constitutional-mandate-centre-to-sc/|title=Jats put in OBC as per Constitutional mandate: Centre to SC|date=5 April 2015}}</ref> Supreme Court judgement quashed the proposed inclusion of Jats in Central list of OBCs on the basis that Jats are already given OBC status in 9 States.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/verdict-on-scrapping-quota-for-jats/article7061406.ece|title=Centre moves Supreme Court seeking review of Jat quota verdict|first=Legal|last=Correspondent|newspaper=The Hindu|date=2 April 2015|access-date=4 March 2019|via=www.thehindu.com}}</ref> On 21 July 2015, Supreme Court rejected Centre's review plea for its verdict of quashing Jat reservation in OBCs.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/OBC-status-for-Jats-SC-quashes-Centres-review-plea/articleshow/48160573.cms|title=OBC status for Jats: SC quashes Centre's review plea |website=The Times of India|date=21 July 2015 |access-date=4 March 2019}}</ref>