For the first time in its history, the Supreme Court of India has introduced a formal policy of reservation in the direct appointment and promotion for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) staff working in the top court. The move, which took effect on June 23, 2025, marks a landmark shift in the internal administration of the apex judiciary, long seen as conservative on issues of affirmative action within its own institutional structures.
To be sure, the reservation is not for judges. The policy covers a wide swathe of posts, including registrars, senior personal assistants, assistant librarians, junior court assistants and chamber attendants. The model roster classifies all employees under three categories: SC, ST and unreserved.
A circular issued on June 24 to all Supreme Court employees and registrars announced the policy’s implementation and outlined the modalities for its execution. “As per the directions of the Competent Authority, it is to notify for the information of all concerned that the Model Reservation Roster and Register has been uploaded on the Supnet (Court’s internal email network) and it is made effective from June 23, 2025,” the circular stated. The document also invited objections from employees in case of inaccuracies in the roster or register and asked them to direct such representations to the Registrar (Recruitment).
This significant policy shift has come during the tenure of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, the second person from a Scheduled Caste background to rise to the country’s highest judicial post. That the approval came under his stewardship adds both symbolic and substantive weight to the development, especially in a judiciary often criticised for underrepresentation of marginalised groups both on and off the bench.
{{/usCountry}}This significant policy shift has come during the tenure of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, the second person from a Scheduled Caste background to rise to the country’s highest judicial post. That the approval came under his stewardship adds both symbolic and substantive weight to the development, especially in a judiciary often criticised for underrepresentation of marginalised groups both on and off the bench.
{{/usCountry}}“All government institutions and many high courts already have provisions for reservation for SCs and STs. So, why should the Supreme Court be an exception? The Supreme Court has delivered several landmark judgments on affirmative action, and as an institution, it had to apply it. Our actions must reflect our principles,” CJI Gavai told HT, reflecting on the rationale behind the internal reform.
The CJI added: “I have always maintained that equality and representation are not competing ideals but complementary forces that drive India’s constitutional vision forward. Affirmative action is not an exception to equality but integral to its realisation. The endevaour sets the tone for a more socially responsive judiciary within its administrative remit.”
As per the circular and the model roster now in effect, SC employees will receive a 15% quota and ST employees a 7.5% quota in promotions. These figures align with the central government’s reservation norms for direct recruitment. However, their application in the Supreme Court for promotional advancement is without precedent.
The development is a landmark moment, not just for the apex court’s employees but for affirmative action discourse in India’s highest institutions. Notably, it has come during the term of a CJI who has lived the experience of social disadvantage and now helms the country’s top judicial institution,
While the move may appear administrative on the surface, it also addresses a long-standing and politically sensitive issue in India -- the denial or deferral of promotion benefits to SC/ST employees due to legal hurdles and the court’s precedents on the matter.
Reservation in promotion has been a fraught subject for decades. In particular, a landmark 2006 Constitution bench judgment in M Nagaraj Vs Union of India laid down stringent criteria for extending such benefits, including quantifiable data showing backwardness of the group, data on inadequacy of their representation in public employment and compliance with administrative efficiency.
These conditions made implementation difficult. In the years that followed, many state-level reservation-in-promotion policies were struck down by high courts for failing to meet the Nagaraj benchmarks.
In 2018, the Supreme Court revisited the issue in Jarnail Singh Vs Lacchmi Narain Gupta, relaxing one of the three conditions -- governments no longer needed to prove backwardness of SC/STs. However, it upheld the other two: quantifiable data on representation and administrative efficiency. It also introduced the exclusion of the “creamy layer” (the relatively well-off among SC/ST groups) from reservation benefits.
This compounded the Centre’s dilemma. The Union government, backed by some states, repeatedly sought dilution of these requirements, citing administrative roadblocks and stagnation in service for thousands of SC/ST employees. It also argued that reservations should match the community’s population proportion, echoing the Supreme Court’s 1995 ruling in RK Sabharwal Vs State of Punjab. But in January 2022, the apex court refused to soften the conditions, emphasising that adequacy of representation cannot be gauged with reference to overall workforce numbers or community population share.
“Before providing for reservation in promotions to a cadre, the state is obligated to collect quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs…Collection of information… cannot be with reference to the entire service or class/group but should be relatable to the grade/category of posts to which promotion is sought,” the 2022 ruling held. The court also made it clear that only contemporaneous data, and not old or outdated statistics, would suffice.
Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court’s internal adoption of a reservation-in-promotion policy clearly acknowledges the institutional need for representation within the top court’s own administrative machinery. By establishing a model roster and maintaining an updated register, the court has now taken the first step in ensuring internal accountability in promotions.
Moreover, it may serve as a template for other constitutional bodies, such as the Election Commission of India or the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which face similar constraints in implementing promotional reservations without running afoul of court rulings.