Caste and class

Why in the News

The Supreme Court has clarified that its March ruling in Rohith Nathan (2026) did not ask the government to reopen completed selections. The ruling held that a parent’s salary alone cannot place a candidate from the Other Backward Classes (OBC) in the “creamy layer“. The dispute shows that the government applies the exclusion rules inconsistently and lacks data on who gains from reservation.

What is the creamy layer, and why is it excluded?

1. What it is: The creamy layer is the section of OBCs that has advanced enough to no longer need affirmative action. It works like a scholarship withdrawn once a family no longer needs it.
2. Origin: In Indra Sawhney (1992), the Supreme Court upheld 27% OBC reservation in central government services on condition that the creamy layer was excluded.
3. Equivalence requirement: Rules of 1993 required posts outside government, such as in public sector undertakings, to be matched with government grades before a parent’s rank excluded a child.
4. Class within caste: OBC reservation aims to dismantle both caste hierarchy and class inequality, so economic differences among OBC families stay relevant.
5. The takeaway: Exclusion is essential, but it is fair only when the same test applies to every family.

How did the government apply the rules inconsistently?

1. 2004 “clarification”: The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) issued a “clarification” in 2004 under which parents’ salaries were counted against some candidates.
2. Candidates denied: From around 2015, the government used the 2004 “clarification” to deny benefits to dozens of OBC candidates who had cleared the Civil Services Examination.
3. Pay revisions, not status: The parents’ salaries crossed the official threshold because of pay revisions. A pay revision did not always reflect a change in occupational status.
4. 2017 guidelines: The Cabinet approved equivalence guidelines in 2017, but a parliamentary committee criticised them on a number of issues.

What did the Supreme Court decide, and how did the government respond?

1. Rohith Nathan ruling: The Court rejected the use of the 2004 “clarification” to exclude OBC candidates arbitrarily, since salary alone is not evidence of social advancement.
2. Allocations stalled: The government stalled service allocations after the 2025 examination. It argued that applying the ruling retrospectively would create administrative chaos.
3. November 6 clarification: The Court said it had not asked for completed selections to be reopened, since that could set workers against one another without correcting the government’s misapplication.

Why are both sides of the reservation debate hard to justify without data?

1. Ignoring inequality within groups: Defending redistribution among caste groups is hard to justify if major inequalities within those groups are ignored.
2. Restricting without evidence: Constraining OBC reservation on the assumption that high income families capture the benefits is equally hard to justify until the extent and causes of such capture are established.
3. Unequal access persists: OBC representation in central government employment was 26.3%, per the latest DoPT Annual Report, and the share declined steadily towards higher positions.
4. Rohini Commission: The Justice G. Rohini Commission indicated that reservation benefits are spread unevenly among OBC communities. Its report, submitted in 2023, is still not public.
5. Census gap: The coming Census includes caste enumeration, but policymakers also need data on each caste’s education, occupations, assets and landholdings.

Challenges

1. Remedy only for litigants: Relief reaches mainly those candidates who can afford to go to court.
2. Unfinished equivalence: Posts outside government are still not matched to government grades, so families on similar pay can be treated differently.
3. Seniority disputes: Late allocation can unsettle the seniority of officers already placed.

Way Forward

1. Supernumerary posts: The government should create supernumerary posts (extra posts added without displacing anyone) for legitimate claimants.
2. 1993 rules for pending cases: DoPT should apply the 1993 rules to all pending allocations, not only to those who litigated.
3. Publish the Rohini report: The Centre should place the Commission’s report in the public domain.
4. Link Census data: Match the caste count with data on education, occupation, assets and landholding.

Conclusion

The creamy layer exclusion keeps its legitimacy only when one test applies to every OBC family. Whether the government settles pending allocations on its own, and builds the evidence on who benefits, remains unresolved.

Back2Basics: Justice G. Rohini Commission

1. Constitution: The Commission was set up in 2017 under Article 340, which lets the President appoint a commission on the conditions of backward classes.
2. Mandate: It examined sub categorisation of OBCs in the Central list, meaning division of the quota so that benefits spread more evenly.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2023] Consider the following statements : Statement-I: The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgements that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for maintenance of efficiency of administration. Statement-II : Article 335 of the Constitution of India defines the term ‘efficiency of administration’. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements? (a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I (b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I (c) Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect (d) Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct ANSWER: (c)”