SC has asked Karnataka govt to respond to the appeal within two weeks (AI image) NEW DELHI: To determine whether an OBC woman candidate came within the creamy layer to be disentitled from reservation in govt employment, what should be taken into consideration – income of her husband or that of her parents? Supreme Court has agreed to examine this question.The woman, aspiring to become a judicial officer in Karnataka, belongs to the Hindu Namadhari community which is under II-A of reserved category. In April 2018, she married a man who belongs to III-B of reserved category, and has been residing separately from her parents since then. She has applied for the post of civil judge, where six posts out of 57 are reserved for candidates belonging to category II-A.After her selection, she sought verification of her caste certificate and issuance of ‘Sindhutva’ certificate based on her husband’s income. The district caste and income verification committee rejected her application saying she belonged to the creamy layer owing to the quantum of her parent’s income.Her mother had retired as a district judge from Karnataka judicial service, and her father retired as assistant conservator of forest. She contended before Karnataka HC that eligibility of a married woman should be decided on her husband’s income and not that of her parents. She said her husband’s annual income put her out of the purview of creamy layer disqualification.The state govt had argued that pension of parents should also be considered for this purpose. The HC had rejected her claim and ruled that the pension of her parents would also be considered as family income.Arguing her appeal against the HC decision, senior advocate Sanjay M Nuli told a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi on Wednesday that the appeal raised a question of law – whether the income of the husband or the income of the parents was to be considered for determining creamy layer of a married woman candidate and, if the income of the parents was to be considered, whether the pension of the parents was to be considered as income or not?The bench issued notice to Karnataka govt and asked it to respond to the appeal within two weeks. It has permitted the appellant to file a rejoinder in a week thereafter and posted the matter for further hearing on April 6.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosThree Fault Lines, One Open War: Security Expert Breaks Down Why Pakistan’s Taliban Gamble FailedPak-Afghan War: Security Expert Say Conflict Could End Badly for IslambadWho Is Really Running Pakistan’s Afghan Policy? Experts React To Islamabad’s AggressionIndia, Israel Backs Kabul: Pak Journalist’s Shocking Claims on Afghan Actions Against IslamabadAmid Rising Violence, Afghanistan Urges Pakistan For Talks To Prevent Prolonged Conflict“Deep Concern”: China Alarms As Pakistan-Afghanistan Clash Explodes After Taliban StrikeKejriwal Gets Clean Chit In Delhi Liquor Policy Case, Court Tears Into CBI Over Lack Of EvidencePakistan Army Blames India Again For ‘Open War’ Against Afghanistan, Calls Taliban Delhi’s ProxyCanada PM Mark Carney Lands In India, Aims For Fresh Push To Reset Strained Bilateral TiesPakistan in Open War With Afghanistan, But Does Islamabad Have the Military Muscle?123Photostories5 plants you should NEVER place near the main door as per Vastu and why3-ingredient breakfast dishes for working women and what makes them specialDitch the pastel winds: What Vijay Deverakonda’s and Rashmika Mandanna’s wedding outfits taught us3 office rules you should always follow for a peaceful life and better work-life balance6 Indian billionaires who own private residence worth crores in Lutyens’ Bungalow Zone, DelhiFrom red anarkali to yellow suit: Rashmika Mandanna’s newlywed glow steals the spotlight10 Bihari Sattu dishes that are good for gut health and overall nutritionOne woman dies every 8 minutes in India from cervical cancer: Oncologist shares 5 critical steps to prevent itHow to spot a liar, as per psychology: 5 signs to look out forDeepika Padukone to Aishwarya Rai: Bollywood stars who turned down Hollywood projects123Hot PicksPakistan-Afghanistan warIndia GDP growthGold rate todayAir ticket refund rulesIncome Tax CalculatorPublic holidays February 2026Bank Holidays februaryTop TrendingResident Evil RequiemDenver BroncosNFL RumorsHSR Stellaron Hunter Blade skinLos Angeles DodgersCody BellingerTony DungyUttarakhand Gang RapeNFL CombineGold Price Prediction
NEW DELHI: To determine whether an OBC woman candidate came within the creamy layer to be disentitled from reservation in govt employment, what should be taken into consideration – income of her husband or that of her parents? Supreme Court has agreed to examine this question.The woman, aspiring to become a judicial officer in Karnataka, belongs to the Hindu Namadhari community which is under II-A of reserved category. In April 2018, she married a man who belongs to III-B of reserved category, and has been residing separately from her parents since then. She has applied for the post of civil judge, where six posts out of 57 are reserved for candidates belonging to category II-A.After her selection, she sought verification of her caste certificate and issuance of ‘Sindhutva’ certificate based on her husband’s income. The district caste and income verification committee rejected her application saying she belonged to the creamy layer owing to the quantum of her parent’s income.Her mother had retired as a district judge from Karnataka judicial service, and her father retired as assistant conservator of forest. She contended before Karnataka HC that eligibility of a married woman should be decided on her husband’s income and not that of her parents. She said her husband’s annual income put her out of the purview of creamy layer disqualification.The state govt had argued that pension of parents should also be considered for this purpose. The HC had rejected her claim and ruled that the pension of her parents would also be considered as family income.Arguing her appeal against the HC decision, senior advocate Sanjay M Nuli told a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi on Wednesday that the appeal raised a question of law – whether the income of the husband or the income of the parents was to be considered for determining creamy layer of a married woman candidate and, if the income of the parents was to be considered, whether the pension of the parents was to be considered as income or not?The bench issued notice to Karnataka govt and asked it to respond to the appeal within two weeks. It has permitted the appellant to file a rejoinder in a week thereafter and posted the matter for further hearing on April 6.
