Indra Sawhney v Union of India

Facts

Following the Union government's implementation of the Mandal Commission report extending 27% reservation in central services to Other Backward Classes, the policy was challenged. A nine-judge Bench was constituted to settle the entire law on reservations in public employment under Article 16. Seven of the nine judges wrote separate judgments, with Jeevan Reddy J's opinion treated as the leading judgment of the majority.

Issues

• Whether Article 16(4) is an exception to Article 16(1) or merely an illustration of it
• Whether caste may be used to identify a 'backward class' for reservation
• Whether there is a ceiling on the total extent of reservation
• Whether the 'creamy layer' among backward classes must be excluded
• Whether reservation extends to promotions

Arguments

The petitioners argued that caste-based reservation violated the equality guarantee of Article 16(1) and that economic criteria alone should identify backwardness. The Union defended the Mandal policy as a permissible measure of substantive equality and social justice enabling adequate representation of backward classes.

Held

The majority held that a caste can be and often is a social class in India, so caste may be the dominant (though not sole) criterion for identifying backward classes. Article 16(4) was treated as an elaboration of Article 16(1), yet the Court fixed an overall ceiling of 50% on reservations in any given year, harmonising the equality and social-justice visions. Carry-forward of unfilled seats was permitted but subject to the 50% limit, overruling the contrary majority in Devadasan. The creamy layer of advanced individuals among the backward classes was directed to be excluded, and reservation in promotions was held impermissible, with a five-year deadline to phase out existing promotion quotas.

Ratio decidendi

Reservation under Article 16(4) is a facet of substantive equality but is constitutionally limited: total reservation must ordinarily not exceed 50%, the creamy layer must be excluded, and the provision does not extend to promotions.

Significance

The single most important judgment on reservations in India, settling the 50% ceiling, the creamy-layer doctrine and the caste-as-class standard; many of its holdings (promotion ban, carry-forward beyond 50%) were subsequently overridden by constitutional amendments (Arts 16(4A), 16(4B), 81st and 85th Amendments), themselves upheld in M Nagaraj.

Related