
The Centre on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court for two years to frame creamy layer criteria for OBC candidates whose parents work in public sector undertakings or the private sector. Solicitor general…
The Centre on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court for two years to frame creamy layer criteria for OBC candidates whose parents work in public sector undertakings or the private sector. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta requested an early hearing on the government's application against retrospective implementation of the court's March 11 judgement, which had disallowed salary-based creamy layer classification for such candidates.

Mehta argued that retrospective reclassification would require changing the cadre, post and service of older OBC candidates already serving in civil services like IAS, IFS and IPS, creating chaos. The government said implementation without a policy would flood Railways, banks, paramilitary and other employers with hundreds of thousands of representations and litigations. The court agreed to list the application on September 1.
The government said it is committed to bringing a policy that addresses the Supreme Court's observations while ensuring fair and just outcomes. However, advocate Varun Thakur opposed the application, arguing the law was already settled by the apex court.
The creamy layer exclusion was established by the Supreme Court in the 1992 Indra Sawhney judgement, which held that reservation benefits should not go to the ‘creamy layer’ among OBCs. The Centre’s 1993 office memorandum set the criteria based on parental income and occupation categories. The March 2025 Rohit Nathan judgement extended this to children of parents employed in PSUs and the private sector, a move the government says will disrupt existing civil service cadres and cause thousands of retrospective reclassification claims from Railways, banks and paramilitary forces. The government faces a two-front challenge: crafting a workable policy while persuading the Supreme Court to delay implementation. The court hears the matter on September 1, and if it insists on the March deadline, the government must either comply or seek a stay through a larger bench.
Source: timesofindia.indiatimes.com
This brief was synthesised by AI from the source linked above.