Caste and class: On OBC reservation
The Hindu - Editorial · Published 11 November 2026 · Last updated
The Supreme Court in Rohith Nathan (2026) rejected the arbitrary use of salary inflation via pay revisions for creamy layer exclusion, underscoring the need for comprehensive caste and socio-economic enumeration in OBC reservations.
Key points
- The Supreme Court in March corrected the inconsistency that the government cannot hold the salary alone of an OBC candidate's parent as evidence of social advancement.
- Under Indra Sawhney in 1992, the Court upheld 27% OBC reservation in central services subject to the exclusion of economically advanced sections known as the creamy layer.
- Following the equivalence requirement in 1993, the DoPT issued a clarification in 2004 that the government used from 2015 to deny Civil Services Examination benefits.
- The Cabinet approved equivalence guidelines in 2017, but a parliamentary committee subsequently criticized them over multiple operational issues.
- In Rohith Nathan (2026), the Court rejected the government's use of the 2004 clarification to arbitrarily exclude OBC candidates based solely on parents' salaries.
- Following the 2025 examination, the government stalled service allocations and appealed that retrospective application would cause administrative chaos.
- On November 6, 2026, the Court conceded it had not asked the government to reopen completed selections to prevent setting workers against one another.
- According to the 2024-25 DoPT Annual Report, OBC representation in central government employment stood at 26.3% but declined steadily towards higher positions.
- The Justice G. Rohini Commission, which submitted its report in 2023, indicated that reservation benefits are distributed unevenly among OBC communities, though the report remains unpublished.
Background
- In 1992, the Indira Sawhney judgment upheld the 27% OBC quota while instituting the creamy layer exclusion principle.
- The Department of Personnel and Training issued equivalence rules in 1993 and subsequently a contested clarification in 2004 regarding parental salary thresholds.
Prelims facts and Mains angle for this issue are in the full SWAदेSH note.
Original report: The Hindu - Editorial