While speaking at the event “India and the Living Indian Constitution at 75 Years” on Sunday, 16 November 2025, CJI B. R. Gavai shared some observations regarding SC reservation. He stated that the creamy layer (people) should not be included in Scheduled caste reservation. He argued that the children of the top officers (like IAS officers) and the children of the landless labourer should not be receive reservation benefits equally. According to him, the same principles used for OBC’s (excluding the creamy layer) should also apply to SC’s so that benefits reach the most deprived sections. Gavai has supported sub-classification within SCs. He believes not all SC communities are equally backward, and some groups remains more deprived than others. Sub-classification would allow reservation benefits to be distributed more fairly among SC sub-groups. He acknowledged criticism from his own community but said that his decision is based on Law and conscience, not political pressure. Gavai stated the SC category is not socially or economically uniform. There are significant differences within SC communities in terms of the deprivation. Therefore, he argues for policies like the creamy-layer concept and sub-classification to ensure that reservation benefits actually reach the most marginalised groups within the SC category.
Gavai’s statement is open to serious critique when placed within the broader context of affirmative action in India. To begin with, reservation for Scheduled Castes is currently restricted to the government sector, a sector that has steadily reduced recruitment over the past decades. In such a situation, the proposal to introduce a creamy layer within the SC quota is not simply a technical modification; it is likely to function as a mechanism of exclusion. If implemented, it could result in a significant number of reserved posts remaining vacant under the rationale that “no suitable candidate” was found. This outcome would directly undermine the constitutional mandate of ensuring representation for communities historically denied access to state power.
Moreover, Gavai’s position is conspicuously silent on the question of reservation in the private sector. As the Indian economy increasingly shifts toward privatization and contractual employment, limiting affirmative action solely to government jobs makes the policy increasingly ineffective. One must therefore question why he does not address the structural imbalance created by the absence of reservation in private sector, an omission that weakens the credibility of his argument. He correctly highlights internal stratification within Scheduled Castes. Social science research has repeatedly shown that the SC category is not homogeneous; some sub-groups remain disproportionately disadvantaged. Without targeted interventions for these communities, reservation risks benefiting only the relatively better-off among them. However, a deeper issue remains: many of the most oppressed SC communities are so economically and socially marginalised that they are not even in a position to make use of reservation benefits. Therefore, he should also emphasise the need for government initiatives that enhance educational access and empower these communities, enabling them to actually benefit from reservation policies.
The assumption that individuals from lower castes stop encountering discrimination once they occupy higher positions is simply unsustainable. Numerous documented cases show that caste prejudice continues within universities, bureaucracy, and corporate spaces. Achievement does not erase social stigma; rather, it often brings new forms of discrimination into view. Before Gawai’s statement on the date of 7 October 2025, the tragic death of IPS officer Y. Puran Kumar, a 2001-batch officer serving as Inspector General at the Police Training Centre, Rohtak, was accompanied by an eight-page note in which he alleged sustained caste-based humiliation and professional harassment. According to the contents of the note, as reported publicly, Kumar who belonged to a Scheduled Caste community described experiences of alleged caste bias, denial of dignity, and systemic indifference dating back to 2020.His note and subsequent complaints by his family accused certain senior officials of discriminatory behaviour, including incidents such as the alleged denial of leave to visit his dying father, withdrawal of his official vehicle, adverse and allegedly biased performance appraisals, and being placed in what he described as “non-existent” or demeaning postings. These allegations remain subject to investigation, but they illuminate the broader social reality faced by many officers from marginalized communities despite their senior rank or elite service status.
Taken together, these concerns reveal that Gavai’s statement is not merely incomplete but it is fundamentally inadequate. It fails to engage with the structural challenges that continue to shape the lived experiences of marginalized communities and instead proposes measures that risk weakening, rather than strengthening, the purpose of reservation itself.
Dr. Rohit Ukey
Assistant Professor
Department of History of Art, Faculty of Arts
Banaras Hindu University (BHU)