Children can’t fall in non-creamy OBC layer if parents’ income in excess: Kerala High Court

The order added, “Enabling the creamy layer to grab the benefits of reservation, subdue and suppress the voice of the non-creamy layer. Hence, the explanation cannot be interpreted to mean that the salary income should be excluded while calculating the gross income of a person in private employment.”

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed pleas filed by two students.

Two 17-year-old students approached the high court after they applied for Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) certificates for NEET UG 2026 and KEAM 2026 admissions, which were rejected on the ground that their family income exceeded the prescribed limit.

One of the students belonged to the Ezhava community, while the other sought NCL status for medical entrance admission. The student who had applied for KEAM admission; her father’s combined value of assets far exceeded the minimum threshold limit of Rs 30,00,000 with respect to the wealth test. 

Another student who had applied for NCL for NEET UG 2026; his father was an NRI and earned around Rs 33 lakh. 

Relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent, Union of India vs Rohith Nathan, the petitioners contended that their parents’ salary income should be excluded while calculating eligibility for NCL certificates.

The state, on the other hand, argued that the petitioners’ parents had substantial income and assets, and excluding salary income would allow financially advances section to claim reservation benefits and defeat the purpose of the creamy layer exclusion principles.

‘Parents’ excessive income cannot fall under NCL’

The court said that as far as private sector employment is concerned, till date, no equivalent or comparable posts with the government have been notified. When such comparable or equivalent posts have not been notified, as per the scheme of the government order dated January 1, 2015, it cannot lead to a situation where there is no creamy layer at all in private employment. The stipulation is that when equivalent posts have not been notified, the method to identify the Non-Creamy Layer is the income or wealth test. The decision in Rohith Nathan’s case (supra) does not state that the income or wealth test should not at all be considered.

The court opined that, as the parents of the petitioners in both these writ petitions have income as well as wealth far in excess of the limits prescribed, they cannot fall in the category of Non-Creamy Layer.

SC verdict on parental income as OBC creamy layer criterion

Earlier in a March ruling, the Supreme Court held that income cannot be the sole criterion to decide the creamy layer among Other Backwards Classes (OBCs), and settled the long-pending question of equivalence between PSUs and private sector employees and those in the government sector.

The Division Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice R Mahadevan held that, “The object of excluding the creamy layer is…not to create artificial distinctions between equally placed members of the same social class…. unequal treatment of similarly placed OBC candidates would not only be legally erroneous but constitutionally impermissible.”