The Supreme Court on Friday questioned whether children of families that have already achieved educational and economic advancement through reservation should continue to avail the benefits of reservation under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, observing that such progress also leads to social mobility.
The Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a petition challenging a Karnataka High Court judgment that upheld the exclusion of a candidate from reservation benefits on the ground that he fell within the creamy layer category.
Justice Nagarathna questioned why children whose parents were both IAS officers should still be eligible for reservation. She pointed out that when people get a good education and financial stability, they move up in society. She warned that if the children of such well-off families keep getting quotas, the country will never move past the reservation system, adding that this issue needs to be addressed urgently.
The petitioner belongs to the Kuruba community, classified under Category II(A) among Karnataka’s backward classes, and had been selected for appointment as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited under the reserved category. However, the District Caste and Income Verification Committee refused to issue him a caste validity certificate after concluding that he belonged to the creamy layer.
During the proceedings, Justice Nagarathna repeatedly expressed concern over the continued extension of reservation benefits to families that had already attained social and economic advancement. The Court observed that educational and financial empowerment naturally results in improved social status and mobility.
The judge pointed out that the reservation system needs a reality check. While quotas are designed to help marginalized communities, the judge argued that if both parents have already used reservations to become highly placed IAS officers, their family has successfully moved up in society. The judge questioned why such well-off families are now fighting against being excluded from quotas, adding that this is an important factor the court must consider.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Shashank Ratnoo argued that salary income alone cannot determine creamy layer status in the case of government employees. He submitted that creamy layer exclusion depends primarily on the status or category of service held by the parents, such as whether they belong to Group A or Group B services, and not merely on salary figures.
Ratnoo contended that if salary income were treated as the sole criterion, even lower-ranking government employees such as clerks, peons and drivers could be excluded from reservation benefits. He further argued that income from salary and agriculture should not be considered while determining creamy layer status and that only income derived from business or other independent sources should be taken into account.
He also relied upon a Karnataka government clarification stating that salary and allowances of State government employees should not be considered while assessing creamy layer eligibility.
Justice Nagarathna, however, pointed out that in the present case, the petitioner’s father was drawing a basic pay of Rs 53,900 per month while the mother was earning Rs 52,650 per month. She questioned the rationale behind extending reservation benefits to children whose parents are well educated, financially stable and securely placed in government service.
Ratnoo maintained that if all forms of income were considered while determining creamy layer status, there would be little distinction left between OBC reservation and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation. He argued that creamy layer norms applicable to OBCs must remain comparatively liberal.
The Court ultimately issued notice in the matter.
The petition challenges a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court that overturned an earlier ruling by a Single Judge. The Single Judge had held that the salary income of the candidate’s parents should be excluded while determining creamy layer status and had directed issuance of a caste validity certificate.
However, the Division Bench reversed that decision, holding that the Central Government Office Memorandum dated September 8, 1993, which excludes salary income while assessing creamy layer under Central reservations, applies only to reservations under the Union Government and not to reservations governed by Karnataka’s policy framework.
Referring to Karnataka’s creamy layer norms, the High Court held that the petitioner’s family income exceeded the prescribed limit and that he therefore fell within the creamy layer category.
The post Supreme Court questions reservation for children of IAS officer couples appeared first on India Legal.