Indra Sawhney v. Union of India

The story

When the Mandal Commission's recommendations were implemented in 1990, reserving over a quarter of government jobs for Other Backward Classes, India erupted—students protested, some set themselves on fire, and the political order was shaken. Petitioners argued this reservation, layered atop existing SC/ST quotas, violated the promise of equal opportunity in public employment. The Union defended it as necessary redress for centuries of social subordination faced by backward castes. A rare nine-judge bench took up the case, aware that its ruling would reshape access to opportunity for millions. In a landmark, layered verdict, the Court upheld the OBC quota but drew crucial lines: the wealthy and socially advanced within backward castes—the 'creamy layer'—would be carved out, and total reservations would be capped at roughly half of all posts, with only rare exceptions. It also barred extending reservations to promotions. The judgment tried to honor both the constitutional promise of equality and the reality of entrenched social hierarchy, becoming the framework India still uses to balance caste-based affirmative action against meritocratic ideals.

The facts

In 1990, the V.P. Singh government issued an office memorandum implementing the Mandal Commission's recommendation to reserve 27% of central government jobs for socially and educationally backward classes (OBCs), in addition to existing 22.5% reservation for SCs/STs. This triggered widespread protests and was challenged before the Supreme Court as violative of the equality provisions of the Constitution. A nine-judge bench was constituted to authoritatively settle the scope of reservation under Article 16(4).

The question before the court

Whether reservation for backward classes other than SCs/STs is permissible under Article 16(4), and if so, subject to what limits (identification criteria, exclusion of the 'creamy layer', ceiling on total reservation, and whether it extends to promotions).

The holding

The Court, by majority, upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs under Article 16(4), holding that backward classes can be identified using caste as a starting point combined with other criteria, but directed exclusion of the 'creamy layer' (socially advanced members) of such classes from the benefit. It held that total reservations under Article 16(4) should not ordinarily exceed 50%, barring extraordinary circumstances, and that reservation could not extend to promotions (a position later altered by constitutional amendment). The Court also rejected reservation based purely on economic criteria as impermissible under Article 16(4).

The principle it stands for

Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1) but an emphatic restatement of the equality principle, permitting adequate representation of backward classes in public employment. Backward classes may be identified by caste along with social and economic backwardness, but the 'creamy layer' among them must be excluded to ensure benefits reach the truly disadvantaged, and reservations generally must not breach the 50% ceiling to preserve equality and efficiency.

Provisions this case shaped

• Art. 335Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and postsinterpreted — Read alongside efficiency-of-administration concerns while upholding reservations
• Art. 16Equality of opportunity in matters of public employmentinterpreted — Clarified scope of Article 16(4) reservation for backward classes in public employment.
• Art. 14Equality before lawlimited — Reservations upheld as consistent with equality guarantee, subject to creamy layer exclusion and 50% ceiling.