(1992) 11 SC CK 0030

In The Supreme Court of India

Case No: Civil Appeals Nos. 2684-90; 4043 of 1982

Indra Sawhney etc. (Appellant)

Vs

Union of India and Others etc. (Respondent)

Date of Decision: 16-11-1992

Bench: Full Bench

Hon'ble Judges: M.H. Kania, C.J.; T.K. Thommen, J.; S. Ratnavel Pandian, J.; R.M. Sahai, J.; P.B. Sawant, J.; M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.; Kuldip Singh, J.; B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.; A.M. Ahmadi, J.

Final Decision: Allowed

Citations:

AIR 1993 SC 477; AIR 1992 SC 477; (1992) 3 SCC 217; (1992) 2 SCR 454 Supp

[Judgment Source]

Link

 

Facts of the Case:

The case arose from challenges to the implementation of the Mandal Commission Report, which recommended 27% reservation in public employment for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in addition to existing reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The petitions questioned the constitutional validity of such reservations under Articles 14, 15, and 16, the criteria for identifying backward classes, and whether economic criteria could be used. The Court examined the scope of affirmative action, the concept of 'creamy layer', and the permissible extent of reservations.

Law Points Raised:

1. Scope and meaning of 'backward class' under Article 16(4).
2. Whether caste can be the sole criterion for identifying backward classes.
3. Whether economic criteria can be the sole basis for reservation.
4. Permissible percentage of reservations in public employment.
5. Applicability of reservation to promotions.
6. Exclusion of the 'creamy layer' from backward class benefits.

Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 5, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 29(2), 38, 39, 39A, 41, 46, 73, 309, 335, 338, 340.
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 — Section 5.
General Clauses Act, 1897 — Section 3(31).

Judgements Referred:

State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas;
Balaji v. State of Mysore;
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India;
K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka.

Obiter Dicta:

Affirmative action under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is essential to achieve substantive equality in a society marked by historical and structural inequalities. However, such measures must be balanced with merit and administrative efficiency. Excessive reservation could undermine equality itself.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1) but an instance of classification implicit in equality.
2. Caste can be a factor in identifying backward classes but cannot be the sole criterion; social and educational backwardness must be established.
3. Economic criteria alone cannot define backwardness.
4. Total reservations should not exceed 50%, except in extraordinary circumstances.
5. The 'creamy layer' among backward classes must be excluded from reservation benefits.
6. Reservation under Article 16(4) does not apply to promotions.

Final Ruling:

The Court upheld 27% reservation for OBCs in public employment, subject to exclusion of the creamy layer. It limited total reservations to 50%, disallowed reservation in promotions, and directed periodic review of backward class lists.

Relevant Paragraph Numbers:

Paras: 1-8, 95-97, 281-283, 382-385, 410-413, 802-803, 859-861.

Summary:

Known as the Mandal Commission Case, this judgment shaped India's reservation policy by clarifying the scope of affirmative action under the Constitution. It upheld OBC reservations with creamy layer exclusion, set a 50% cap on total reservations, and restricted reservations in promotions, balancing social justice with equality principles.

[Judgment Source]

LInk