Ram Singh v. Union of India

16 Oct 2025 Landmark Judgements 16 Oct 2025

One Page Summary – Ram Singh v. Union of India

Citation: (2015) 03 SC CK 0040 | (2015) 4 SCC 697

Case No: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 274, 261, 278, 297, 298, 305, 357 and 955 of 2014 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

Date of Decision: 17 March 2015

Bench: Hon'ble Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Ranjan Gogoi

Final Decision: Inclusion of Jat community in Central OBC list declared invalid due to lack of adequate supporting data

[Judgment Source]

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=965257

Law Points Raised:

- Whether the inclusion of the Jat community in the Central List of Backward Classes was constitutionally valid.
- Whether the Union Government can reject the advice of the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) citing "ground realities".
- The legal obligation of government to base inclusion in the OBC list on objective, quantifiable criteria.

Ratio Decidendi:

- The Supreme Court emphasized that the classification for reservation must be based on contemporary data and relevant social indicators, not outdated perceptions or political considerations.
- The decision of the government to reject the NCBC advice was not based on any new data but relied on “perceptions” and was deemed legally inadequate.
- Courts must uphold the statutory role of expert bodies like NCBC under the NCBC Act, 1993.

Final Ruling:

- The Supreme Court quashed the 2014 Notification that included the Jat community in the Central OBC list.
- It held that Jats were neither socially nor educationally backward as per the NCBC report.
- The decision to include Jats was seen as a populist measure, not backed by objective assessment.

Relevant Paragraph Numbers:

- Role of NCBC and Rule 4 of 2011 Rules: 5–10
- Cabinet’s deviation from NCBC’s advice: 11
- Constitutional context and Indra Sawhney precedent: 13–15
- Final conclusions and annulment: 22–25

[Judgment Source]

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=965257

Article Details
  • Published: 16 Oct 2025
  • Updated: 16 Oct 2025
  • Category: Landmark Judgements
Subscribe for updates

Get curated case law updates and product releases straight to your inbox.

Join Newsletter