Author: Bridhima Sinha, 4th year, BBA LLB (Hons.) , University of Mumbai Law Academy

Case Citation:

Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India & Others, AIR 1993 SC 477

Introduction:

The Indra Sawhney case is one of the most important landmark decisions in Indian constitutional law, dealing with reservations and affirmative action. The case arose after the Indian government implemented the Mandal Commission’s recommendations, which provided 27% reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government jobs. This move was challenged on the grounds of violating the right to equality and meritocracy.

A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a historic judgment, which upheld reservations for OBCs but introduced key limitations, such as the 50% ceiling on reservations and the exclusion of the ‘creamy layer’ from reservation benefits. This case remains foundational in shaping India’s reservation policies.

Facts of the Case:

The Indian government, in 1979, set up the Mandal Commission to identify socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) and recommend measures for their advancement.

The commission’s report, submitted in 1980, recommended 27% reservations for OBCs in public employment.

The recommendations were not implemented until 1990, when Prime Minister V.P. Singh announced the decision to implement 27% OBC reservations in central government jobs.

This led to nationwide protests, including self-immolations by students, as many argued that such reservations violated meritocracy and the right to equality.

Legal Challenge:

Several writ petitions were filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the reservation policy.

The case was heard by a nine-judge constitutional bench, making it one of the most significant constitutional law cases in Indian history.

Issues Presented Before the Court:

• Can caste be a basis for identifying “backward classes” under Article 16(4)?
• Does reservation policy violate the fundamental right to equality (Articles 14, 15, and 16)?
• Can reservations exceed 50% of the total available seats or jobs?
• Should economic criteria alone be used to determine backwardness?
• Should the “creamy layer” (wealthier or more privileged OBC individuals) be excluded from reservations? Do reservations apply to promotions in government jobs?

Arguments Presented:

Petitioners (Challenging Reservation Policy):

Violation of Meritocracy: Excessive reservations would compromise the efficiency of public administration.

Right to Equality (Article 14): Reservations should not result in “reverse discrimination” against meritorious candidates.

Caste-Based Discrimination: Using caste as a criterion for backwardness would perpetuate caste distinctions instead of eliminating them.

Arbitrariness in Reservation Percentage: The 27% reservation for OBCs, in addition to 22.5% reservations for SCs and STs, would exceed 50% and lead to unfairness.

Respondents (Defending Reservation Policy):

Affirmative Action: Reservations are necessary to ensure equal opportunities for historically marginalized groups.

Social Justice: Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution allow for reservations to uplift backward classes.

Caste as a Basis for Backwardness: In India, caste has historically been linked to social and educational backwardness.

Economic Criteria Alone is Insufficient: Economic disadvantage is only one aspect of backwardness, but social and educational backwardness should also be considered.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

1. Article 14 – Right to Equality

2. Article 15(4) – Special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes

3. Article 16(4) – Reservation in public employment for backward classes

4. Article 335 – Consideration of SCs and STs in government jobs, ensuring administrative efficiency

Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court upheld the reservation for OBCs, but introduced several key modifications to ensure balance:

50% Cap on Reservations: Total reservations cannot exceed 50%, except in extraordinary circumstances.This prevents excessive reservations from undermining merit-based selection.

Caste as a Basis for Backwardness: The Court held that caste could be used as a criterion, but not as the sole determining factor. Backwardness should be social, educational, and economic in nature.

Exclusion of the Creamy Layer: The Court introduced the “Creamy Layer Doctrine”, stating that wealthier or better-educated OBC individuals should be excluded from reservation benefits.The rationale was to ensure reservations benefit the truly disadvantaged within the OBC category.

Economic Criteria Alone Not Sufficient: The Court rejected the idea that economic criteria alone could determine backwardness. Instead, social and educational factors must also be considered.

No Reservation in Promotions: The Court ruled that Article 16(4) does not provide for reservations in promotions.Reservations can be applied only at the entry level of government jobs.

Reasoning of the Court:

The Court aimed to harmonize Article 14 (equality) with Articles 15(4) and 16(4) (affirmative action).The 50% cap ensures that merit and efficiency are not entirely compromised. Excluding the creamy layer ensures that reservations help the truly needy.The ruling ensured that efficiency in governance was not sacrificed due to excessive reservations.

Basic Structure Doctrine and Indra Sawhney Case:

The Basic Structure Doctrine, established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), was indirectly relevant in this case.The Supreme Court ensured that the reservation policy did not violate the fundamental right to equality, which is part of the Constitution’s basic structure.

Dissenting Opinions:

In the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) case, several dissenting opinions emerged on key issues. Some judges disagreed with the 50% cap on total reservations, arguing that it was too rigid and could hinder the upliftment of backward classes. There was also contention regarding the exclusion of the creamy layer from reservation benefits, with some judges believing it would unjustly deny the benefits to a significant portion of the OBC population. Additionally, the ruling that reservations in promotions were unconstitutional was opposed by certain dissenting judges, who argued that promotions should also be included in the reservation policy to ensure complete social and economic upliftment for backward classes within the public sector. These dissenting views highlighted the ongoing tension between affirmative action and meritocracy, as well as the degree of reservations necessary for achieving true equality.

Impact and Significance:

The Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) case was a landmark judgment that upheld 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public employment while introducing the “creamy layer” concept to exclude the more privileged among them from availing benefits. It reinforced the 50% cap on total reservations to maintain the right to equality under Article 16(1) of the Indian Constitution. The ruling also clarified that reservations in promotions were unconstitutional, impacting future affirmative action policies. This case significantly shaped India’s reservation framework, ensuring a balance between social justice and meritocracy.

Critical Analysis:

The Indra Sawhney case struck a delicate balance between affirmative action and meritocracy, ensuring that reservations serve their intended purpose without compromising efficiency in governance. The 50% cap on reservations was a significant safeguard against excessive affirmative action, but it has been criticized as arbitrary and not necessarily reflective of the actual backward population. The creamy layer exclusion was a progressive step to prevent the benefits of reservations from being monopolized by relatively privileged individuals within OBCs, yet its implementation remains inconsistent. Additionally, while the ruling clarified that economic criteria alone cannot define backwardness, it left room for future debates, as seen in the EWS quota (103rd Amendment, 2019), which introduced reservations based solely on economic status. Overall, the case strengthened the framework for social justice policies but also raised new legal and political challenges, making it a cornerstone of India’s reservation jurisprudence.

Conclusion:

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India remains a landmark ruling that defined reservation policies in India. It upheld affirmative action but imposed key limitations, ensuring that both social justice and meritocracy are protected.