The Supreme Court on Friday questioned whether children of families that have already achieved social, educational and economic advancement through reservation should continue to receive benefits under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) quota system.

Hearing a petition challenging a Karnataka High Court judgment on creamy layer exclusion, Justice BV Nagarathna observed that once families attain social mobility through education and economic empowerment, continued reservation for their children raises important concerns. 

“If both parents are IAS officers, why should they have reservations? With education and economic empowerment, there is social mobility,” Justice Nagarathna remarked during the hearing before a bench also comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.

Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over Repeated Reservation Benefits

The case relates to a candidate from the Kuruba community, categorised under II(A) among Karnataka’s backward classes, who was selected as assistant engineer (electrical) in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd under the reserved category.

However, the District Caste and Income Verification Committee denied him a caste validity certificate after finding that he fell within the creamy layer category.

Authorities assessed the family’s annual income at around Rs 19.48 lakh and noted that both parents were government employees. Justice Nagarathna repeatedly stressed the need for balance, stating that families who have already progressed socially and economically due to reservation benefits should eventually move beyond the system.

Debate Over Creamy Layer Criteria

During arguments, advocate Shashank Ratnoo contended that salary alone cannot determine creamy layer status for government employees. He argued that classification depends on the status of parents in government service, such as whether they belong to Group A or Group B categories, rather than income from salaries.

Ratnoo also submitted that excluding candidates solely based on salary could unfairly impact lower-ranking employees such as clerks, peons and drivers. He cited Karnataka government clarifications stating that salary and allowances should not be considered while determining creamy layer status for state government employees.

The petition challenges a Karnataka High Court division bench ruling, which held that the exclusion of salary income applied only to Union government reservations and not to Karnataka’s reservation policy.