Relevance: GS II (Social Justice & Constitution) | Source: The Indian Express / AIR

1. What is the News?

The Supreme Court recently ruled that parental income alone cannot decide if an Other Backward Classes (OBC) candidate belongs to the ‘creamy layer’.

2. What was the Core Issue?

• The Unfair Rule: A 2004 government rule used the raw salary of PSU (Public Sector Undertaking) and private sector employees to push their children into the ‘creamy layer’, denying them the OBC quota.
• The Discrimination: However, for regular government employees, the rules looked at the parent’s official rank (like Group A or B), not just their fluctuating salary.
• The SC Judgment: The Court struck this down as unfair and unconstitutional. It clarified that removing someone from the OBC quota must be based on their actual social status and job category, not purely on an income test.

The “UPSC Trap”

• The “Total Income” Trap: A classic UPSC statement might claim: “Any OBC family earning above ₹8 lakh automatically falls into the creamy layer.” This is incorrect. 
• According to the core rules, income from salaries and farming (agricultural land) is strictly excluded (not counted) in this ₹8 lakh wealth test.
• The Constitution Trap: The term “Creamy Layer” is not written anywhere in the original Constitution. It was created by the Supreme Court in 1992.

UPSC Value Box

With reference to the ‘Creamy Layer’ criteria for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), consider the following statements:

1. The concept of the ‘Creamy Layer’ was explicitly defined in the original text of the Constitution of India.
2. While calculating the gross annual income to determine creamy layer status, income from salaries and agricultural land is strictly excluded.
3. According to recent Supreme Court interpretations, creamy layer determination is primarily a status-based exercise rather than a purely income-based one.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only

(b) 2 and 3 only

(c) 3 only

(d) 1, 2 and 3

Correct Answer: (b)