UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus ROHITH NATHAN AND ANOTHER, ETC.

Citation: [2026] 4 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 11-03-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 4 S.C.R. 1 : 2026 INSC 230
Union of India and Others 
v. 
Rohith Nathan and Another, Etc.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 2827-2829 of 2018)
11 March 2026
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and  
R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the clarificatory letter dated 14.10.2004 can have any 
overriding or superseding effect over the Office Memorandum dated 
08.09.1993, which expressly lays down the criteria for exclusion 
from the benefit of reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) 
by identifying the creamy layer namely, the socially advanced 
persons of sections among the Socially and Educationally Backward 
Classes; whether there can be hostile discrimination between 
employees of the Government and those working in Public or 
Private Sector Undertakings, when both occupy posts of the same 
grade or class.
Headnotes†
Reservation – OBC reservation – Creamy layer status – 
Determination of, solely on the basis of income brackets without 
reference to the categories of posts and status parameters 
enunciated in 1993 Office Memorandum, unsustainable – 
1993 OM laid down the criteria for exclusion from the benefit 
of reservation for OBCs by identifying the creamy layer 
namely, the socially advanced persons of sections among 
the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, wherein 
income from salary and agricultural income stood excluded 
from the Income/Wealth Test for determination of creamy layer 
status – However, 2004 clarificatory letter, directed inclusion 
of salary income of PSU and private sector employees under 
Category II(C) – Respondents-candidates (parents of all 
respondent candidates were PSU employees, bank employees 
or otherwise fell under Category II(C) of the Schedule to the 
Office Memorandum dated 08.09.1993) qualified the Civil 
* Author
2
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Services Examination however, as the equivalence of posts 
in PSU, banks and other organisations vis-à-vis Government 
posts had not been formally determined, the DoPT applied 
the Income Wealth Test under Category VI of the 1993 OM r/w 
2004 Letter and upon assessing the parental income of the 
respective candidates for the preceding three financial years, 
and classified them as falling within the Creamy Layer of the 
OBCs, rendering them ineligible for OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) 
reservation benefits – Thus, their cases were not considered 
for service allocation under the reserved category – CAT 
passed orders in favour of the the respondents – Challenged 
by appellants, writ petitions dismissed by the High Courts of 
Madras, Delhi and Kerala:
Held: No infirmity in the impugned judgments – Determination 
of creamy layer status solely on the basis of income brackets, 
without reference to the categories of posts and status parameters 
enunciated in the 1993 OM is unsustainable in law – Overemphasis 
on the 2004 clarificatory letter to the extent of making income 
alone determinative without regard to parental status or category 
of service would defeat the structural framework of exclusion 
envisaged under the 1993 OM – Under the 1993 OM, salary income 
and agricultural income are consciously kept outside the common 
pool while determining exclusion under the Income/Wealth Test – 
A mere government letter cannot have the effect of overriding, 
overruling or superseding any proceeding in the nature of an 
executive instruction or an Office Memorandum issued in exercise 
of executive power u/Art.162 – Therefore, the clarificatory letter 
must be construed strictly as one explaining or supplementing the 
foundational guidelines laid down in the 1993 OM, which was issued 
after due deliberation and following the requisite procedure and not 
as altering its substantive framework – Salary income cannot be 
mechanically aggregated in a manner that defeats the constitutional 
objective articulated in Indra Sawhney – A comprehensive reading 
of the 1993 OM along with the 2004 clarificatory letter shows that 
income from salaries alone cannot be the sole criterion to decide 
whether a candidate falls within the creamy layer – The status 
as well as the category of post to which a candidate’s parent or 
parents belong is essential – Mere determination of the status of 
a candidate as to whether he/she falls within the creamy layer or 
the non-creamy layer of the OBCs cannot be decided solely on 
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 
3
Union of India and Others v. Rohith Nathan and Another, Etc.
the basis of the income – Any attempt to read par

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.