New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Friday questioned whether children from families that have already attained educational and economic advancement through reservation should continue receiving its benefits, observing that such upward mobility should place them within the creamy layer category and exclude them from further reservation benefits.
The remarks came from a Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan while hearing a special leave petition (SLP) challenging a Karnataka High Court judgment upholding the exclusion of a candidate from OBC reservation on the ground of falling within the “creamy layer”.
During the hearing, the Justice Nagarathna-led Bench orally observed that reservation cannot continue indefinitely once a family has attained social and economic advancement. “If both parents are IAS officers, why should they have reservations? With education and economic empowerment, there is social mobility. So then again, to seek reservation for the children, we will never get out of it,” it remarked.
The apex court further said that once families have progressed due to reservation and are well placed in society, the rationale for continuing such benefits to the next generation requires reconsideration.
“There has to be some balance. Socially and educationally backward, yes, but once the parents have attained a level because of taking advantage of reservation, if they are both in government service and very well placed, social mobility is there. Now they are questioning the exclusion. This also has to be kept in mind,” it observed.
The Supreme Court was hearing an SLP filed against a judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which had set aside an order of a single judge and upheld the exclusion of the petitioner from reservation benefits under Category-II(A) on the ground that he belonged to the creamy layer.
As per the ruling delivered on December 3, 2025, the petitioner belonged to the Kuruba caste and had applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL) under the reserved category.
The District Caste and Income Verification Committee had rejected his claim after finding that the annual income of his parents exceeded the prescribed creamy layer ceiling of Rs 8 lakh.
The records before the Karnataka High Court showed that the petitioner’s father and mother, both government employees, were drawing annual salaries exceeding the threshold.
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that the salary income of government employees alone should not be considered while determining creamy layer status, relying on Karnataka government clarifications as well as earlier precedents.
It was further argued that if all forms of income were taken into account, no distinction would remain between OBC reservation and EWS reservation and argued that creamy layer norms for OBCs must remain more liberal.
After hearing the submissions, the apex court issued notice on the plea and, as per the computerised case status, it is tentatively listed for further hearing on July 13.
The issue also assumes significance in light of a Constitution Bench ruling that suggested the application of the “creamy layer” principle even to SCs and STs while permitting sub-classification within these categories.
In a 6:1 decision, the apex court had observed that once persons belonging to SC/ST communities attain higher social and economic status after availing reservation benefits, their children cannot continue to be treated at par with those who remain genuinely disadvantaged.
“Can a child of IAS/IPS or Civil Service officers be equated with a child of a disadvantaged member belonging to the Scheduled Castes, studying in a Gram Panchayat/Zilla Parishad school in a village?” Justice B.R. Gavai had asked in his opinion.
He had further observed that persons who, after availing reservation, “have reached the high echelons in life cannot be considered to be socially, economically and educationally backward, so as to continue availing the benefit of affirmative action”.
“They have already reached a stage where on their own accord they should walk out of the special provisions and give way to the deserving and needy,” Justice Gavai had said.
(IANS)
