Indra Sawhney Case (1992)

– Mandal Case and Reservation Jurisprudence

Background of the Case

In 1990, the Union Government issued an executive order implementing the recommendations of the Mandal Commission, providing:

• 27% reservation in Central Government jobs for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) under Article 16(4)

Subsequently, another executive order provided → 10% reservation for economically backward sections not covered by existing reservation schemes

These orders were challenged before the Supreme Court, leading to a historic nine-judge bench decision.

Core Constitutional Questions

1. Is reservation for OBCs in public employment constitutionally valid?
2. What are the limits of reservation under Article 16(4)?
3. Can economic criteria alone be the basis of reservation?
4. Does reservation apply to promotions and backlog vacancies?

Supreme Court’s Judgement

The Supreme Court delivered a detailed and calibrated ruling, balancing equality of opportunity with social justice.

(a) 27% Reservation for OBCs Upheld

The Court upheld the validity of → 27% reservation for OBCs under Article 16(4)

It clarified that:

• Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1)
• It is a facet of substantive equality

Thus, reservation was treated as a means to achieve equality, not as a departure from it.

(b) Creamy Layer Principle Introduced

A major constitutional innovation of this case was the exclusion of the “creamy layer”.

The Court held that:

• Advanced sections among OBCs must be excluded from reservation
• Otherwise, reservation would benefit the already privileged

This ensured that reservation reaches the truly backward.

(c) 50% Ceiling on Reservation

The Court laid down that:

• Total reservation should not ordinarily exceed 50%
• This flows from the principle of equality of opportunity

Exceeding this limit would require → Extraordinary circumstances

(d) No Reservation in Promotions (for OBCs)

The Court ruled that:

• Article 16(4) does not permit reservation in promotions
• Reservation is confined to initial appointments

(This was later altered for SCs/STs through constitutional amendments.)

(e) Backlog Vacancies and Relaxations Restricted

The Court held that:

• Backlog vacancies cannot be carried forward in a manner that:
  • Breaches the 50% ceiling
• No relaxation in:
  • Qualifying marks
  • Standards of evaluation
    for promotions under Article 16(4)

(f) Economic Criteria Alone Invalid

The Court struck down the 10% reservation for economically backward sections, holding that:

• Economic backwardness alone is not a constitutionally valid basis under Article 16(4)
• Social and educational backwardness remains the constitutional touchstone

Impact of the Judgement

The Indra Sawhney judgment reshaped India’s reservation framework.

(a) Administrative and Institutional Outcomes

• Ram Nandan Committee appointed to identify the creamy layer
• Establishment of the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) to → Examine inclusion and exclusion of backward classes

(b) Constitutional Amendments Triggered

The judgment led to five major constitutional amendments, mainly concerning SC/ST reservations:

1. 76th Amendment Act, 1994
   • Placed the Tamil Nadu Reservation Act in the Ninth Schedule
2. 77th Amendment Act, 1995
   • Allowed reservation in promotions for SCs and STs (Article 16(4A))
3. 81st Amendment Act, 2000
   • Allowed carrying forward of backlog vacancies beyond 50%
4. 82nd Amendment Act, 2000
   • Permitted relaxation in qualifying marks for SC/ST promotions
5. 85th Amendment Act, 2001
   • Introduced consequential seniority in promotions for SCs/STs

Constitutional Significance

This case:

• Distinguished social backwardness from mere poverty
• Converted equality from a formal concept to a substantive one
• Imposed constitutional discipline on reservation policies
• Became the backbone of modern reservation jurisprudence

Place in Constitutional Evolution

Aspect	Indra Sawhney Contribution
Equality	Substantive equality
Reservation	Conditional and limited
Creamy layer	Constitutionally mandated
Economic criteria	Rejected (then)

Summary

The Indra Sawhney Case (1992) upheld 27% OBC reservation, introduced the creamy layer principle, imposed a 50% ceiling, barred reservation in promotions (for OBCs), rejected economic criteria alone, and reshaped India’s reservation policy through judicial doctrine and constitutional amendments.