Supreme Court Bars Income‑Only Test for OBC Creamy‑Layer Determination – Emphasises Parental Post Status Overview The apex court, in a bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan , held that the OBC "creamy layer" cannot be identified merely by the parents' income. The decision reinstates the primacy of the 1993 Office Memorandum (OM) and rejects the 2004 clarificatory letter that made salary income decisive. Key Developments Supreme Court dismissed the Union’s appeals and granted relief to UPSC candidates wrongly placed in the creamy layer. The Court clarified that creamy layer status must be assessed using the post‑status criteria of the 1993 OM; income is a secondary filter only when status criteria are inapplicable. The 2004 clarification, which allowed salary‑income thresholds (₹2.5 lakh for three years) to decide creamy‑layer status, was held “unsustainable in law”. Equal protection under Articles 14 and 16 was emphasized; PSU/ private employees cannot be treated differently from similarly placed government employees. DoPT was directed to re‑evaluate the affected candidates without considering salary income and to create super‑numerary posts where necessary, within six months. Important Facts • The dispute originated when DoPT, relying on a 14 Oct 2004 clarificatory letter, classified candidates as creamy‑layer based on parental salary from PSUs, banks, etc. • The 1993 OM excluded salary and agricultural income from the primary "Income/Wealth Test" (Category VI) and focused on the parent’s post – e.g., Group A officers or equivalent positions in PSUs, banks, universities. • The Supreme Court reiterated that a clarificatory instruction cannot introduce substantive changes to an existing executive policy. • The judgment cites the landmark Indira Sawhney case as the constitutional foundation for the creamy‑layer concept. UPSC Relevance Understanding this judgment is crucial for GS‑2 (Polity) and GS‑1 (Society) topics: Reservation policy – distinction between status‑based and income‑based exclusion criteria. Judicial interpretation of executive orders – hierarchy of policy documents (judgment > clarificatory letter > OM). Equality clause – application of Articles 14 and 16 in reservation matters. Role of DoPT in implementing reservation guidelines. Way Forward • The government must amend its operational guidelines to align with the 1993 OM, ensuring that parental post status, not salary, is the primary determinant of creamy‑layer status. • A review of all OBC candidates already classified under the 2004 income test is required, with provision of super‑numerary posts where vacancies exist. • Future policy clarifications should be issued as amendments to the parent OM, not as stand‑alone letters that alter substantive criteria. • Aspirants should monitor subsequent notifications from DoPT for updated eligibility norms and potential impact on upcoming UPSC cycles.