social justice
OBC reservations exclude the “creamy layer” (families above an income limit or with senior government posts). There is no such exclusion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In August 2024 the Supreme Court allowed states to sub-classify SC/ST quotas, and several judges suggested a creamy-layer exclusion. The Union government said it would not apply a creamy layer to SCs and STs, arguing their disadvantage is social, not just economic.
Take a stance to see what people think.
Results open up once you've answered, so they don't sway you. 542 people have taken a stance so far.
Mark an argument convincing even if you took the other side. It shows which points persuade people across the divide.
Better-off families should make way for the poorest in their community.
Studies show that within SC and ST groups, a small number of better-off families take a large share of reserved jobs and seats, generation after generation.
The creamy layer already works for OBCs; applying it to SCs and STs would direct benefits to those still left behind.
Children of senior officers and professionals have access to the same schools and coaching as anyone else.
Caste discrimination doesn’t end with income.
Untouchability and caste prejudice affect people regardless of their income, as cases of discrimination against SC officers and professionals show.
Many reserved posts already go unfilled. Excluding better-off candidates could leave seats empty rather than going to the poorest.
Reservation for SCs and STs is about representation in institutions, not just an anti-poverty measure.
Whether SC/ST disadvantage is mainly about income or about caste discrimination that persists regardless of income. If benefits are concentrated in a few families, a creamy layer would spread them; if discrimination affects even well-off families, excluding them would be unfair.
