NEWS: SC says Economic Criterion cannot be sole basis for identifying ‘Creamy Layer’

The Supreme Court quashed the notification issued by the Haryana

NEWS: SC says Economic Criterion cannot be sole basis for identifying ‘Creamy Layer’

The Supreme Court quashed the notification issued by the Haryana Government specifying the criteria for exclusion of creamy layer within the backward classes. The court stated that economic criteria cannot be the sole basis for identifying a creamy layer.

Pichra Warg Kalyan Mahasabha Haryana v. State of Haryana

A Division Bench of Justice L Nageshwara Rao and Justice Aniruddha Bose was hearing a plea challenging the 2016 notification of the Haryana Government specifying the criteria for exclusion of creamy layer within the backward classes.

As per the notification, the children of persons having gross annual income up to ₹3 lakh were to get first preference to avail the benefit of reservation in services and admission in educational institutions. The remaining quota seats would go to backward classes who earn more than ₹3 lakh but up to ₹6 lakh per annum.

The court opined that the notification issued by the Haryana Government was in violation of Judgement of Indra Sawhney I was at variance with the memorandum dated September 8, 1993 issued by the Union of India.

Hence the court set aside the notification and directed Haryana Government to issue fresh notification within a period of 3 months after taking into account the principles laid down by the top court in Indra Sawhney I and the criteria mentioned in Section 5(2) of the 2016 Act for determining creamy layer.

Read Judgement

Join Us as a Campus Ambassador for Legal Wires and Lex Live!
Join Us as a Campus Ambassador for Legal Wires and Lex Live!
Join Us as a Campus Ambassador for Legal Wires & Lex Live! Lead initiatives, build Legal AI Societies, and connect with peers and professionals. https://forms.gle/sFNBHhiquZSGemqw9
"No Suits to Be Registered and No Orders Passed Until Further Directions": Supreme Court Intervenes in Places of Worship Act Case
"No Suits to Be Registered and No Orders Passed Until Further Directions": Supreme Court Intervenes in Places of Worship Act Case
The Supreme Court halts the registration of new suits against places of worship and bars survey orders in pending cases, while hearing petitions challenging the Places of Worship Act, 1991.
"Mere Harassment Not Enough for Suicide Abetment Conviction": Supreme Court Clarifies Legal Standards
"Mere Harassment Not Enough for Suicide Abetment Conviction": Supreme Court Clarifies Legal Standards
The Supreme Court rules that harassment alone isn't enough to convict someone of abetment to suicide. It requires evidence of direct action or incitement by the accused.
Or
Powered by Lit Law
New Chat
Sources

Ask Lit Law