Quick answer: The creamy layer is the better-off section of the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) that is kept out of OBC reservation. On 6 November 2026 the Supreme Court refused to change its March 2026 ruling that a parent’s salary alone cannot place a candidate in the creamy layer. It said the ruling will apply to the pending service allocation of Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2025 candidates but will not reopen appointments already completed.
Why the OBC creamy layer is in the news
A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan passed the order on Friday, 6 November 2026, while disposing of an application filed by the Centre, according to Business Standard and ThePrint. The Centre had asked the court to clarify, and partly modify, its judgment of 11 March 2026 in Union of India v. Rohith Nathan.
The Centre asked for two years to work out which public sector undertaking (PSU) and private posts are equivalent to government posts. It also warned that applying the ruling to past cases could unsettle many appointments. It said more than 5,69,000 reserved vacancies, including 3,70,000 OBC vacancies, had been filled in Central departments between 2016 and 2025.
Key facts about the Supreme Court order
- Core holding kept: the salary of a parent working in a PSU or private firm cannot, by itself, decide whether the child falls in the creamy layer. The nature and category of the parent’s post must also be examined.
- Documents in dispute: the court held that the 2004 DoPT clarification (14 October 2004) could not add a condition that was not in the original 1993 Office Memorandum, which kept salary out of the income test.
- Equality angle: treating children of PSU and private employees differently from similarly placed government employees could violate Articles 14 and 16. ThePrint reports that the March ruling called this “hostile discrimination”.
- No reopening: selections, appointments and seniority positions completed before 11 March 2026 will not be reopened just because of the ruling.
- CSE 2025 covered: UPSC declared the CSE 2025 results on 6 March 2026, but services had not yet been allocated. The court said there was no good reason to delay, so the ruling governs that allocation. The Centre had wanted to allocate services to 958 recommended candidates under the existing rules.
- Relief limited to parties: individual relief applies to parties to the case. Other pending claims will be decided on merit.
- No deadline set: the bench declined to fix a timeline for deciding post equivalence. It said framing that policy is for the executive and legislature, within constitutional limits.
Timeline: how the income limit has changed
| Year | Creamy layer income limit (per annum) |
|---|---|
| 1993 | ₹1 lakh |
| 2004 | ₹2.5 lakh |
| 2008 | ₹4.5 lakh |
| 2013 | ₹6 lakh |
| 2017 | ₹8 lakh (current) |
Background: Indra Sawhney and Article 16(4)
The creamy layer idea comes from Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, often called the Mandal case. A nine-judge bench gave its verdict on 16 November 1992. It upheld 27 per cent reservation for OBCs in Central government jobs. It also said the advanced section of the backward classes must be left out, and that reservations should not cross 50 per cent overall.
Article 16(4) of the Constitution allows the State to reserve appointments or posts for any backward class of citizens that, in the State’s opinion, is not adequately represented in its services. The creamy layer test decides who within the OBCs gets that benefit. Children of constitutional office-holders, senior officers and armed forces officers above a certain rank are excluded because of their parents’ status. Many other families are judged on income.
Exam angle: how NDA, CDS and CAPF can ask this
- Fundamental Rights questions in the CDS and CAPF general studies papers often test Articles 14, 15 and 16. Learn what Article 16(4) and 16(4A) allow.
- Landmark cases such as Indra Sawhney (1992), with its nine-judge bench, 27 per cent OBC quota and 50 per cent ceiling, are standard static polity topics.
- For the CAPF (AC) essay paper, be ready to set out both the Centre’s concerns and the court’s reasoning in a balanced way.
Practice MCQs
Q1. Which bench passed the 6 November 2026 order on the OBC creamy layer ruling?
(a) Chief Justice and two judges (b) Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan (c) A five-judge Constitution Bench (d) A nine-judge bench
Answer: (b) — this two-judge bench disposed of the Centre’s application.
Q2. The present income ceiling for the OBC creamy layer is:
(a) ₹4.5 lakh (b) ₹6 lakh (c) ₹8 lakh (d) ₹10 lakh
Answer: (c) — it was raised from ₹6 lakh to ₹8 lakh in 2017.
Q3. Which Article allows reservation of posts for backward classes not adequately represented in State services?
(a) Article 14 (b) Article 15(1) (c) Article 16(4) (d) Article 21
Answer: (c) — Article 16(4) deals with reservation in public appointments.
Q4. The Indra Sawhney judgment (1992) was delivered by a bench of:
(a) 5 judges (b) 7 judges (c) 9 judges (d) 11 judges
Answer: (c) — a nine-judge bench delivered the Mandal verdict.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Supreme Court decide on 6 November 2026?
It refused to modify its March 2026 creamy layer ruling. It said completed appointments will not be reopened, but pending matters, including service allocation for CSE 2025, must follow the ruling.
Can parental salary alone put an OBC candidate in the creamy layer?
No. The court held that a PSU or private sector parent’s salary cannot by itself decide creamy layer status. The parent’s post and its category must also be considered.
What is the current creamy layer income limit?
₹8 lakh per year. The limit was revised from ₹6 lakh in 2017.
Which case introduced the creamy layer concept?
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, decided by a nine-judge bench on 16 November 1992. It upheld 27 per cent OBC reservation but excluded the creamy layer.
Also read on NCA: Two-child norm and the Supreme Court | Legislative Council (Vidhan Parishad) | Monthly defence current affairs PDFs | CDS coaching in Chandigarh
Sources: Business Standard, ThePrint, The Tribune (2017), Constitution of India, Article 16, Indra Sawhney case. Facts as reported up to 8 November 2026.
Featured image background: Subhashish Panigrahi / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0.
