Creamy layer exclusion must be rationally defined to bar socially and economically advanced persons from reservation benefits.

Exclusion of the creamy layer is treated as an integral requirement of Articles 14 and 16(4), and reservation criteria must realistically identify persons who have advanced socially and economically beyond backwardness. The text criticises terms of reference and commission recommendations that aimed to maximise protection for backward classes without rationally reassessing whether individuals had crossed the threshold of backwardness; those terms and recommendations were unsustainable. It also rejects extending protection merely because a person follows a hereditary occupation, and disapproves abrupt enhancement of the income ceiling without scientific justification or cogent reasons for departing from earlier accepted criteria. A fresh reconsideration through a new commission was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the terms of reference and the recommendations of the Narendran Commission, culminating in the Government order fixing the creamy-layer criteria and income limit, were consistent with the constitutional scheme governing exclusion of the creamy layer from backward classes; (ii) Whether the State could lawfully dilute the creamy-layer exclusion by extending protection to hereditary occupations and by fixing the income limit at the level adopted in the impugned notification.

Issue (i): Whether the terms of reference and the recommendations of the Narendran Commission, culminating in the Government order fixing the creamy-layer criteria and income limit, were consistent with the constitutional scheme governing exclusion of the creamy layer from backward classes.

Analysis: The governing principle, as repeatedly laid down in the earlier decisions, is that persons who have advanced socially and economically so as to cease to be truly backward cannot continue to receive the benefit of reservation. The exclusion of the creamy layer is an integral part of the equality mandate under Articles 14 and 16(4), and the State is bound to evolve criteria that are realistic, scientifically supported, and faithful to that constitutional discipline. The terms of reference themselves were found to be infirm because they proceeded on the premise of giving maximum protection to backward classes rather than identifying those who had already crossed the threshold of backwardness. The report also failed to justify, on any rational or scientific basis, the sharp enhancement of the income ceiling within a short span and did not meaningfully engage with the prior accepted criteria.

Conclusion: The terms of reference and the report were invalid and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the State could lawfully dilute the creamy-layer exclusion by extending protection to hereditary occupations and by fixing the income limit at the level adopted in the impugned notification.

Analysis: The exclusionary rule for creamy layer could not be replaced by a blanket protection for hereditary occupations, nor could it be framed so as to keep within reservation those who had in fact attained social and economic advancement. The constitutional test requires exclusion of those who have reached the level of the general category, and any criterion that blurs that boundary defeats the very object of the doctrine. The Court also disapproved the manner in which the later commission disregarded the earlier accepted committee report without cogent reasons. Since the impugned notification was built on those defective premises, judicial interference was warranted. At the same time, the Court considered it appropriate to direct a fresh commission to examine the matter afresh.

Conclusion: The impugned notification could not stand, and fresh reconsideration by a new commission was required.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned decision-making process was set aside, and the State was required to reconsider the creamy-layer criteria through a fresh commission in conformity with the constitutional scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: Exclusion of the creamy layer is a constitutional requirement under the equality guarantees, and any State criterion for backward-class reservation must rationally identify and exclude socially and economically advanced persons rather than enlarge reservation to include them.

---