The record
Written by software from the 2 reports below. The points restate them; where one says why it matters, that is Prism's reading, not a reported fact.
- The Supreme Court of India is considering whether to grant the government a two-year extension to implement a March 2026 ruling on OBC creamy layer status.
- The government argues that an immediate, retrospective application of the judgment would cause administrative chaos and affect thousands of employees and candidates.
- Opposing legal counsel contends that the government is delaying compliance with a final court directive meant to address discrimination in reservation policies.
- The court previously determined that counting parental salary and agricultural income in a way that excludes some groups but not others constitutes hostile discrimination.
What to watch next
- The final Supreme Court order on the government's request for a two-year extension.
- The Department of Personnel and Training's progress on creating supernumerary posts for affected candidates.
What changed2
Every report on this story, newest first. Times are when each outlet published.
Hindustan Times[1]
SC reserves order on Centre plea against retrospective OBC creamy layer rulingThe Hindu BusinessLine[2]
SC reserves orders on Centre’s plea for two-year window to fix OBC creamy layer policy
Who said what4
Only words found exactly in the article are shown, attributed and linked to the line they came from.
Aishwarya Bhati
additional solicitor general
2 quotes · 2 outlets
“The application of the present judgment to past and ongoing recruitments will gravely prejudice the competing rights of persons who were not even a party to the present litigation and will result in reopening of seniority, cadre allocation of appointees and candidates and result in complete administrative chaos.”
In the article
…laid down by this court for a period of two years so that the competing rights can be adjusted consistent with the administrative contingencies and an effective equivalence exercise is carried out.” It further said, “ The application of the present judgment to past and ongoing recruitments will gravely prejudice the competing rights of persons who were not even a party to the present litigation and will result in reopening of seniority, cadre allocation of appointees and candidates and result in complete administrative chaos. ” Further, Bhati pointed out that the Civil Service Examination recruitment rules for the past year and this year have already been issued and some candidates are citing this judgment to seek enhanced allocation…
“The Court has power under Article 142 of the Constitution to declare its judgment prospective. If the judgment is not given prospective effect, it will entail several harsh and unjust unintended consequences on employees/appointees who were not even parties to the litigation and complete administrative chaos. It is therefore prayed that the judgment [Union of India versus Rohith Nathan] be given prospective effect so that ongoing and past recruitment processes are not affected”
In the article
…Court verdict would have significant consequences for recruitment, service allocation, cadre allocation, seniority, admissions and the administration of OBC reservation generally, affecting lakhs. Prospective effect “ The Court has power under Article 142 of the Constitution to declare its judgment prospective. If the judgment is not given prospective effect, it will entail several harsh and unjust unintended consequences on employees/appointees who were not even parties to the litigation and complete administrative chaos. It is therefore prayed that the judgment [Union of India versus Rohith Nathan] be given prospective effect so that ongoing and past recruitment processes are not affected ,” the Centre urged. Bhati submitted that an implementation of the March 11 judgment, particularly with retrospective effect, may affect allocation of services since 2012. Retrospective re-allocation would impact…
Tushar Mehta
solicitor general
1 quote · 1 outlet
“The Union government is only praying for a limited deferral of the operationalisation of the law laid down by this court for a period of two years so that the competing rights can be adjusted consistent with the administrative contingencies and an effective equivalence exercise is carried out.”
In the article
…what the Centre did during the past few months. The Centre led by solicitor general Tushar Mehta and additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati said that the application does not question the judgment. “ The Union government is only praying for a limited deferral of the operationalisation of the law laid down by this court for a period of two years so that the competing rights can be adjusted consistent with the administrative contingencies and an effective equivalence exercise is carried out. ” It further said, “The application of the present judgment to past and ongoing recruitments will gravely prejudice the competing rights of persons who were not even a party to the present litigation and will result in…
P Wilson
Senior advocate
1 quote · 1 outlet
“the Centre was merely trying to delay, even undo a final judgment of the apex court.”
In the article
…sufficient time for determination of a new policy to correct hostile discrimination as pointed out by the court in the judgment. Senior advocate P Wilson, who represents the candidates, objected while contending that the Centre was merely trying to delay, even undo a final judgment of the apex court. He criticised that the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) had failed to comply with court directions, Parliamentary Committee recommendations, and its own 1993 rules. He said the government could very well…
Coverage2
All filed from India
Named India · Department of Personnel and Training · Madras High Court · Aishwarya Bhati · Basav Prabhu Patil · Prateek Chadha · PS Narasimha · P. Wilson · R Mahadevan · Sanjay Hedge · Supreme Court · Supreme Court of India · Tushar Mehta
The 2 reports are listed beside the record.
Corrections and versions
A correction says what was wrong and why. Every earlier headline and brief of this record is kept.
Something wrong?
Say what, and it arrives with this record's address filled in. A correction is welcome.
Ask this story
Answers cite the reports above, or say they can't.