Supreme Court creamy layer debate resurfaces during Karnataka reservation case
The Supreme Court creamy layer issue came under focus on Friday after the apex court questioned whether children of senior civil servants should continue receiving reservation benefits under the OBC quota system.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations while hearing a petition challenging a Karnataka High Court decision on creamy layer criteria in public employment.
The judges observed that social mobility often accompanies economic and educational advancement and asked why children of affluent families should continue to avail reservation benefits.
“If both parents are IAS officers, why should their children get reservation?” the bench observed during the hearing.
The court further said that if financially advanced families continue receiving quota benefits generation after generation, the reservation system may fail to support those who remain socially and economically disadvantaged.
Supreme Court creamy layer observations during hearing
The case involves a candidate from Karnataka’s Kuruba community, which falls under Category II(A) in the state backward classes list.
The candidate secured selection as an assistant engineer in the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited under the reserved category.
However, the District Caste and Income Verification Committee denied the candidate a caste validity certificate after finding that the family fell within the creamy layer category.
Officials assessed the family’s annual income at nearly Rs 19.48 lakh. Both parents are government employees.
Under existing OBC reservation norms, families earning more than Rs 8 lakh annually generally fall within the creamy layer category and lose eligibility for reservation benefits.
Creamy layer rules and reservation balance
During the hearing, the bench stressed the need for balance in reservation policies.
The judges said many families that have already achieved economic and social advancement continue to benefit from reservation. They observed that higher education and financial stability often improve social standing as well.
At the same time, the court reiterated that reservation remains necessary for socially backward communities.
Petitioner challenges creamy layer criteria
Senior advocate Shashank Ratnu, appearing for the petitioner, argued that salary alone should not determine creamy layer status among government employees.
He said creamy layer classification should depend on the service category of parents, such as whether they belong to Group A or Group B services, rather than annual salary alone.
The petitioner also argued that relying only on salary could exclude lower-ranking government employees from reservation benefits.
Earlier, a single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court had ruled in favour of the candidate. A division bench later overturned the decision.
