• Source:JND

Reservation Case: The Supreme Court on Friday made a significant observation on the creamy layer in the reservation, questioning the continued provision of quota benefits to children from financially advanced families of backward classes. The top court also remarked that, along with educational and economic empowerment, social mobility also follows.

The apex court stated that if both parents are IAS officers, why should they receive a reservation? Educational and economic empowerment is accompanied by social mobility. These observations were made by a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjwal Bhuyan while hearing a petition.

ALSO READ: 'Can't Do Politics Without Going Into Leader's Room': Pappu Yadav's Remark On Women Sparks Row; Women's Panel Issues Notice'

SC's Landmark Observation

Socially and educationally backward people should indeed receive reservations, but when parents have reached a certain level by taking advantage of reservations, why should their children receive reservations? The court asked.

What Was The Matter?

The Supreme Court was hearing a plea that challenged the Karnataka High Court's decision, in which the court upheld the petitioner's exclusion from the reservation. Both of the petitioner's parents are state government employees. During the hearing, the court remarked that if the students' parents hold good jobs and have a substantial income, the children should be exempted from reservation.

ALSO READ: Delhi CM Rekha Gupta Links BJP Victory To Women's Reservation Bill, Criticises Opposition Leaders

The court noted that several government orders already exclude such affluent classes from reservation benefits. However, these orders are now being challenged. The bench observed that in the case of economically weaker sections and disadvantaged groups, there is only economic backwardness, not social backwardness. There should be some balance.

Refused To Grant Validity Certificate

The petitioner was selected for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) under the reserved category at Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. However, the District Caste and Income Verification Committee, concluding that he belongs to the creamy layer (affluent class), refused to grant him a caste validity certificate.

The authorities found that both of the petitioner's parents were government employees and their combined income exceeded the prescribed creamy layer limit. The basis for classifying the petitioner in the creamy layer was his parents' income.

Insistence on Excluding the Creamy Layer

Both of them were salaried employees, and their combined income reportedly exceeded Rs 800,000 (eight lakh). As a result, the caste certificate issued to the petitioner, which certified him as a member of the Kuruba community, was revoked.

Earlier, in January 2025, the Supreme Court, in a separate case, refused to hear a petition seeking to exclude the children of Indian Administrative Service and Indian Police Service officers in Madhya Pradesh from benefits reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The court had said that the exclusion of the creamy layer from the SC and ST quota, mentioned in the judgment of the seven-judge Constitution Bench in the case of State Bank vs Davinder Singh in August 2024, was only an opinion, and the legislature has the power to take a final decision in this regard.
(With Jagran.com inputs)


Also In News