The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a public interest litigation filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking the introduction of a “creamy layer” principle in relation to tax exemptions available to members of certain Scheduled Tribe communities. A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and V Mohana held that the relief sought involved matters of legislative policy and advised the petitioner to pursue the issue before the appropriate parliamentary forum.

Appearing in person,Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay argued that the continued grant of tax exemptions without considering economic advancement resulted in unequal treatment and violated Articles 14, 19 and 27 of the Constitution. He contended that affluent individuals possessing substantial assets and businesses continued to avail benefits originally intended for disadvantaged tribal communities and sought the implementation of a creamy layer mechanism.

The petitioner further submitted that social and economic conditions had changed considerably since the provision was introduced, pointing to higher literacy rates and increased access to educational and economic opportunities. He argued that the existing framework required reconsideration in light of present-day realities.

The Bench, however, repeatedly observed that the grievance essentially related to policy choices falling within the domain of Parliament. The Chief Justice noted that elected representatives were best placed to examine whether amendments, revisions or modifications to the law were required. The Court also pointed out that Parliament’s Petition Committee provides a mechanism through which citizens may seek legislative changes.

When petitioner pressed for judicial intervention, the Court suggested that specific cases of abuse could be pursued separately before the competent authorities.

Ultimately, the Court held that the relief sought essentially involved the formulation, revision and amendment of public policy, for which the Supreme Court was not the appropriate forum at this stage. The petition was accordingly disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Parliamentary Petitions Committee by way of a comprehensive representation. The Court also permitted him to forward copies of his petition to the respondents.