My two theoretical and interrelated arguments against creamy layer provision in India's reservation policy

Indian state devised reservation policy in response to caste system. So caste has been the most important factor in the country's affirmative actions.

When the government decides which castes to include for positive discrimination, it looks at their history of having faced discrimination, violence, neglect, having been kept away from education and state institutions (modern or pre-modern), etc.

The government also checks if this history of discrimination and prejudice continues to keep these castes marginalised in the present.

Government takes caste as an unit for deciding who is eligible for reservations. It looks at the history of these castes and the impact this history continues to have on their present.

The creamy layer provision divides an eligible caste into two groups — creamy layer and non-creamy layer. What this basically does is that the government says a caste's history of marginalization is history of only the non-creamy layer population.

Does this mean "creamy layer population" does not have a history?

Now the second point. As I said earlier, the reason a caste is eligible for reservations is because its past continues to inform its present. And because "creamy layer" population is part of the same caste community, it informs "creamy layer" households' present too.

Or is the court trying to say that "creamy layer" households have transcended caste, are beyond caste, above caste, outside caste system or something like that? If the caste system continues to exist, how do "creamy layer" households manage to become casteless?