The Supreme Court on Friday questioned whether children of economically and educationally advanced families within background classes should continue receiving reservation benefits. The bench observed that social mobility achieved through reservation should also be considered.
A bench headed by Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations while hearing a plea challenging a Karnataka High Court ruling related to creamy layer exclusion in OBC reservation.
According to PTI, the case involved a candidate belonging to Karnataka’s Kuruba community whose caste certificate was cancelled after authorities found out that he fell within the creamy layer category because both his parents were government employees.
‘Why should they have reservations?’
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna repeatedly raised questions about whether reservation benefits should continue for children of families that have moved up socially and economically through quotas.
ALSO READNo more liquor in tetra packs? Supreme Court asks for Centre’s response on plea seeking ban
“If both parents are IAS officers, why should they have reservations? With education and economic empowerment, there is social mobility,” the bench stated.
The judge further added, “So then again to seek reservation for the children, we will never get out of it.”
According to the Indian Express, Justice Nagarathna, referring to economically stable families within backward classes, said, “The parents have studied, they are in good jobs, they are getting good income, and the children want reservation again. So, they should get out of reservation.”
What is the petition about?
As per a report by Live Law, the petitioner had been selected as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited under the reserved category. However, the District Caste and Income Verification Committee rejected him a caste validity certificate after assessing the family’s annual income at around Rs 19.48 lakh, which is above the prescribed creamy layer limit.
The Karnataka High Court later upheld the decision, after which the petitioner moved the Supreme Court.
Debate over creamy layer rules
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Shashank Ratnoo asserted that creamy layer status for government employees should depend on the service category of the parents like Group A or Group B and not on salary income alone.
As per Live Law, Ratnoo argued that if salary became the only measure, even lower-ranking government employees could lose reservation benefits.
ALSO READCJI Surya Kant clarifies ‘cockroaches’ comment: ‘It was about fake-degree holders, not Indian youth’
The Supreme Court, however, emphasised that economic progress and education also result in social advancement.
“There has to be some balance. Socially and educationally backward, yes but once the parents have attended a level because of taking advantage of the reservation…social mobility is there,” Justice Nagarathna observed, IE reported.
Earlier remarks made by the Supreme Court
As per PTI, the Supreme Court in January 2025 had refused to entertain a plea that was seeking exclusion of children of IAS and IPS officers from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe reservation benefits in Madhya Pradesh.
The report also referred to the Supreme Court’s August 2024 judgement in the State of Punjab vs Davinder Singh case, where a seven-judge Constitution bench allowed sub-classification within SC communities for better distribution of reservation benefits.
Former Chief Justice of India BR Gavai had remarked in that case that “categories…who have already enjoyed a major chunk of reservation should not object” to benefits being directed towards more disadvantaged sections.
</p> |
