The "creamy layer" in India's caste-based reservation system refers to the relatively affluent and socially advanced members of backward classes-primarily Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and more recently extended to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs)-who are excluded from reservation benefits to ensure aid reaches the most disadvantaged. Here's a concise breakdown:

• Origin: Introduced by the Sattanathan Commission in 1971 for OBCs, formalized after the 1992 Indra Sawhney case, which upheld 27% OBC reservations but mandated excluding the "creamy layer." The concept was extended to SC/STs for promotions in 2018 and reinforced by a 2024 Supreme Court ruling.
• Criteria for OBC Creamy Layer:
• Income: Parent's gross annual income exceeding ?8 lakh (last revised in 2017) for three consecutive years, excluding salary and agricultural income.
• Occupation: Children of Group-A/Class-I officers (e.g., IAS, IPS), or those with parents in high-ranking posts (e.g., constitutional positions, armed forces above colonel).
• Professions: Families in high-status vocations (e.g., doctors, lawyers, engineers) with income above the threshold.
• Other: Parents in Group-B/Class-II services (if both) or those with significant wealth/property.
• SC/ST Creamy Layer: As of August 2024, states must identify and exclude creamy layer within SCs/STs from reservation benefits, though criteria may differ from OBCs. The focus is on social and economic advancement, not just income, as SC/ST reservations address historical caste-based discrimination like untouchability, not solely economic backwardness.
• Purpose: Prevents affluent members of backward classes from monopolizing quotas, ensuring benefits reach the truly marginalized. For OBCs, it's about social and educational backwardness; for SC/STs, it's about countering caste-based exclusion.
• Controversy:
• OBCs: Some argue the ?8 lakh threshold is outdated (NCBC proposed ?15 lakh in 2015). Others say economic criteria alone don't capture social backwardness.
• SCs/STs: Critics, including activists, argue that applying creamy layer to SC/STs ignores persistent caste discrimination, even among the affluent (e.g., Dalit professionals facing bias). Posts on X reflect this, with users like @ProfKarunyakara (Aug 2024) calling it unconstitutional, claiming it risks unfilled reserved seats. Conversely, supporters like Justice Gavai (2024 ruling) argue it ensures equality by prioritizing the neediest.
• Current Status: The creamy layer for OBCs is well-defined, but SC/ST criteria are still evolving, with states tasked to set policies. A 2019 Central Government appeal against SC/ST creamy layer application was noted, but the 2024 ruling reaffirmed its necessity.

This balances constitutional intent with practical challenges, though debates persist on whether economic progress negates caste-based disadvantages, especially for SC/STs.