Indra Sawhney and Ors. v Union of India and Ors. (Mandal Commission case)
Rule established
Reservations for socially and educationally backward classes under Article 16(4) cannot exceed 50 percent; the 'creamy layer' among backward classes must be excluded; caste can be a valid criterion but not the sole criterion for identifying backward classes.
Facts
- The Union government issued office memoranda implementing the Mandal Commission's recommendation of 27 percent reservation for socially and educationally backward classes (OBCs) in central government jobs, in addition to existing SC/ST reservations
- This was challenged as violative of the equality of opportunity guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16
Issue
- Whether reservation for backward classes under Article 16(4) is constitutionally valid, and if so, what limits (in extent, application, and identification criteria) govern such reservation.
Held
- The Court upheld the validity of reservation for OBCs under Article 16(4)
- Caste as a starting point: Backward classes can be identified using caste as a starting point, though caste alone cannot be the sole criterion; economic and social criteria must also inform identification
- Creamy layer exclusion: The relatively advanced sections within backward classes must be excluded from reservation benefits
- 50 percent ceiling: Total reservations (including SC, ST, and OBC) generally cannot exceed 50 percent, save in extraordinary circumstances (to be justified with cogent reasons)
- No reservation in promotions: Reservation under Art.16(4) was held confined to initial appointment/recruitment (this limitation was later addressed by the 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Amendments)
Ratio Decidendi
Reservation for socially and educationally backward classes under Article 16(4) is constitutionally valid, subject to structural limits: exclusion of the creamy layer, an overall ceiling of 50 percent absent extraordinary justification, and confinement to initial recruitment (subsequently altered by constitutional amendments). These limits ensure reservation serves genuine backwardness.
How to use it in an exam
- Part A: Foundational authority for the modern reservation framework under Art.16(4).
- Part B: Always pair with M. Nagaraj v Union of India (2006) for how the promotion-related limitation was addressed following constitutional amendments.
- Key tested points: 50 percent ceiling and creamy layer exclusion.
Source
Source: AIR 1993 SC 477; landmark nine-judge bench decision on reservation policy
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.