The term “creamy Layer” was first used by the Apex court in the judgement of Indira sawhney v. UOI also known as the Mandal commission case.
Creamy layer is a term used in the political system to mention members of other backward classes (OBCs) who are comparatively forward, economically stable and more educated and therefore not eligible for government sponsored educational and professional benefits.
The term creamy layer was supposed to be introduced to differentiate among the OBCs, and the criteria used for this differentiation was financial status. Ones who are more financially stable will come under creamy layer and will we excluded from availing benefits of reservation and ones who are not financially stable will be eligible for availing benefits of reservation.

Foundation of creamy layer
The concept of creamy layer classification of OBCs was based on recommendations proposed by the second backward classes commission also known as Mandal commission. In 1990 the government issued notification regarding 27% reservation to socially and educationally backward classes. This was challenged in the case of Indira Sawhney v. UOI in which the apex court upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs in addition to exclusion of creamy layer. After the judgement given by apex court an expert committee was formed headed by retd. justice R.N Prasad to decide the criteria for determining the creamy layer.
In 1993 the department of personnel and training issued list of various categories of people based on their income whose children cannot avail the benefit of reservation.
Income criteria for employees of PSUs and government entities: Critical analysis
The persons belonging to group ‘A’/class I and group B/ class II officers of all India, central and state services; the employees holding equivalent posts in PSU, Banks, universities, etc
The concept of creamy layer when introduced excluded few OBCs from availing the benefit on reservation. In which the employees of government entities and PSUs were also included.
The criteria enumerated in the service category IIA and category IIB will apply mutatis mutandis (with necessary changes) to officers holding equivalent or comparable posts in PSUs, Banks, insurance organisations, universities etc.
The exclusion was done on the basis of income wealth test which is applicable to children of persons whose gross annual income is above Rs. 8 Lakhs P income criteria for employees of PSUs and government entities for three consecutive years.
The justification behind exclusion of government and PSUs employees is that they fall outside all the criteria (economic, social, status,etc) which are required to make one eligible for availing benefits of reservation.

Origin of creamy layer for OBCs
The Central Government issued an Office Memorandum reserving 27% of positions in central government services in response to the Mandal Commission’s recommendations. Indra Sawhney (Indra Sawhney and Others Vs. Government of India) challenged the order in the Supreme Court (1992).
The highest court’s constitutional bench upheld the decision to give OBCs a 27% reservation in Central Government jobs. However, the Honourable Supreme Court ruled in the judgement that the creamy layer of OBCs should not be subject to the reservation.
To determine who among the OBCs is the creamiest, the Central Government established a commission under the direction of Justice Ram Nandan Prasad. The Central Government formally endorsed the commission’s recommendations.
In light of this, the Central Government issued an order outlining the standards and conditions for excluding OBCs from the Creamy Layer. The same standards and procedures continue to be used to distinguish Creamy Layer from OBCs.

Judicial pronouncement on creamy layer concept
Indira Swami v. Union of India.
Reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in Central Government positions and Public Sector Entities were encouraged by the Mandal Commission Report (1980).
In Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, a nine-judge Supreme Court panel affirmed OBC reservations. The Court emphasised that the Government must deny the benefits of reservations to the “creamy layer,” nonetheless. These were members of the OBC who had advanced to a certain degree in both social and economic standing.

Ashok kumar thakur v. State of Bihar
Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1995 was declared unconstitutional by the court. The State Government of Bihar established a set of standards for identifying the creamy layer through this Ordinance.

Jarnail Singh v Lacchmi Narain Gupta
The Court affirmed discrimination against SC/STs in public job promotions. However, it expanded the concept of the creamy layer to promotions for SC/STs. This implies that SC/STs from the creamy layer are not permitted to make bookings for special offers. Reservations are intended to ensure that underprivileged groups can advance alongside other people on an equal footing. However, people who belonged to the SC/ST category’s “creamy layer” were snatching up the sought-after posts in the public sector. The advantages of reservations were unavailable to those who were truly backward. The Court emphasised that one aspect of equality is the elimination of the creamy layer. Candidates in the general category would receive a different treatment if the creamy layer principle were not followed.

The goal of OBC reservation (non-creamy layer) is to advance the most deserving applicants from underprivileged groups. The majority of OBC candidates often fall into Non-Creamy Layer OBC, with the exception of the most wealthy.
Many qualified individuals don’t know how to get the necessary certificate, though.
Even worse, dishonest and incompetent bureaucrats frequently refuse to provide eligible applicants the OBC non-creamy layer certificate.
You can claim your meritorious quota without facing any harassment from the authorities by carefully reading the government’s laws regarding non-creamy layer requirements.