Indra Sawhney v. Union of India

The Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) case, popularly known as the Mandal Commission Case, is one of the most consequential constitutional judgments in the history of India. Decided by a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, it laid down the legal framework governing reservations and affirmative action for backward classes in public employment. The judgment clarified the interpretation of Article 16(4) of the Constitution, established the 50% ceiling limit for reservations, introduced the concept of the creamy layer, and prohibited reservations in promotions. It remains the cornerstone of India’s jurisprudence on equality, social justice, and affirmative action.

Background and Context

The roots of the case lie in the long-standing debate over the extent of reservation for socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) in India. The First Backward Classes Commission (Kaka Kalelkar Commission) was set up in 1953 under Article 340 of the Constitution to identify socially and educationally backward classes. Its recommendations were not implemented by the government.
In 1979, the Second Backward Classes Commission, headed by B. P. Mandal, was constituted by the Janata Party government to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes and to recommend measures for their advancement. The Mandal Commission Report (1980) recommended:

• 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government services and public sector undertakings;
• Total reservations (including those for SCs and STs) not exceeding 50%;
• Use of social, educational, and economic indicators to identify backwardness.

The recommendations were shelved initially but revived in 1990 when Prime Minister V. P. Singh announced the implementation of 27% reservation for OBCs in central government employment. This led to widespread protests, social unrest, and legal challenges, culminating in the Indra Sawhney case.

Facts of the Case

The Office Memorandum (OM) issued by the Government of India on 13 August 1990 reserved 27% of vacancies in civil posts and services under the Government of India for OBCs.
A second Office Memorandum (25 September 1991), issued by the subsequent P. V. Narasimha Rao government, added an additional 10% reservation for economically backward sections of higher castes not covered under any existing reservations.
These memoranda were challenged by Indra Sawhney and others under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that the orders violated the right to equality under Articles 14 and 16(1).
The case was referred to a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court to decide the constitutional validity of the government’s action and to interpret the scope of Article 16(4).

Issues Before the Court

The Supreme Court considered several key constitutional questions:

1. Whether Article 16(4) is an exception to Article 16(1) or merely an instance of classification permitted under it.
2. Whether reservations can be made solely on the basis of caste.
3. Whether economic criteria alone can be the basis for identifying backward classes.
4. Whether Article 16(4) permits reservations in promotions.
5. Whether Article 16(4) allows the carrying forward of unfilled reserved vacancies.
6. Whether there should be a limit on the total percentage of reservations.
7. Whether the concept of a creamy layer should be introduced to exclude the more advanced members of backward classes.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners’ Arguments (Indra Sawhney and others):

• The petitioners contended that Article 16(4) is an exception to the rule of equality under Article 16(1), and hence, its scope must be narrowly construed.
• They argued that caste alone cannot be the criterion for identifying backward classes, as this would amount to reverse discrimination.
• They opposed the 27% reservation for OBCs, claiming that it violated the principle of merit and administrative efficiency.
• They contended that economic backwardness should be the primary criterion for reservation, not caste.
• The petitioners also argued that reservations in promotions were unconstitutional and that total reservations should not exceed 50%.

Respondent’s Arguments (Union of India):

• The Union Government argued that Article 16(4) is not an exception but an enabling provision intended to promote substantive equality.
• It maintained that caste is a valid and reliable indicator of social and educational backwardness in Indian society.
• The government justified the 27% OBC quota as a measure of social justice, consistent with the Constitution’s objectives under Articles 38, 46, and 335.
• It supported the carry forward rule for unfilled vacancies and defended the inclusion of economic criteria as an additional basis.

Judgment of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on 16 November 1992, in a 6: 3 majority decision, upholding the constitutionality of 27% reservation for OBCs while striking down the 10% quota based solely on economic criteria.
Key Findings and Principles Established:

1. Article 16(4) is not an exception but an enabling provision:
   • The Court held that Article 16(4) is a facet of Article 16(1), allowing the State to make provisions for adequate representation of backward classes.
2. Caste as a Basis for Identifying Backward Classes:
   • The Court accepted that in India, caste is a relevant factor in determining social and educational backwardness but should not be the sole criterion.
3. Exclusion of the Creamy Layer:
   • The Court introduced the doctrine of the creamy layer, excluding socially advanced and affluent members of OBCs from reservation benefits to ensure that benefits reach the genuinely backward sections.
   • The government was directed to identify and exclude such individuals based on objective criteria.
4. 50% Ceiling Rule:
   • The Court ruled that reservations should not exceed 50% of total available posts, except in extraordinary circumstances.
   • This became known as the 50% ceiling rule, forming a key constitutional limit on affirmative action.
5. No Reservation in Promotions:
   • The Court held that Article 16(4) does not permit reservations in promotions, as the clause applies only to initial appointments.
   • However, promotions made before the judgment were protected.
6. Economic Criteria Alone Invalid:
   • The Court struck down the 10% reservation for economically backward sections of higher castes introduced by the 1991 Office Memorandum, ruling that economic criteria alone cannot define backwardness under Article 16(4).
7. Periodic Review of Backward Classes:
   • The Court directed the government to review the list of backward classes every ten years to ensure that only genuinely backward groups benefit from reservations.
8. Carry Forward Rule Permitted with Conditions:
   • Unfilled reserved vacancies can be carried forward to subsequent years, but the total reservations in any given year must not exceed 50%.

Ratio Decidendi

The Indra Sawhney judgment established a comprehensive framework for reservation policy in India:

1. Reservation under Article 16(4) is a means to achieve substantive equality, not an exception to it.
2. Caste can be used as a relevant but not exclusive criterion for determining backwardness.
3. Creamy layer exclusion is mandatory for OBCs to prevent monopolisation of benefits by the elite within backward classes.
4. The 50% cap on total reservations is constitutionally binding.
5. No reservations in promotions unless explicitly enabled by a constitutional amendment.

Significance of the Judgment

The Indra Sawhney judgment has had an enduring influence on India’s constitutional and social landscape.
1. Foundation of Modern Reservation Policy:

• It laid down the legal and constitutional foundation for reservations for OBCs in public employment.

2. Recognition of Substantive Equality:

• The judgment reinforced that formal equality (treating everyone alike) is inadequate in a stratified society; substantive equality requires affirmative measures to uplift the disadvantaged.

3. Introduction of the Creamy Layer Concept:

• The “creamy layer” principle has since become a cornerstone of affirmative action law, applied in later cases such as Ashoka Kumar Thakur (2008) and Jarnail Singh (2018).

4. Limiting State Power:

• The 50% ceiling rule placed a constitutional check on the expansion of reservation policies beyond reasonable limits.

5. Legislative and Judicial Responses:

• The judgment’s prohibition on promotions led to the 77th Constitutional Amendment (1995), which inserted Article 16(4A) permitting reservations in promotions for SCs and STs.

Criticism

While widely respected, the judgment attracted some criticism:

• Critics argued that the 50% cap was arbitrary and not grounded in any constitutional text.
• Some viewed the creamy layer test as an unrealistic standard that undermined the collective upliftment of backward classes.
• Others felt that economic backwardness should have been given greater weight as a criterion.

Nevertheless, the decision struck a delicate balance between meritocracy and social justice, shaping the contours of affirmative action policy in India.

Legacy

The Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) judgment remains a constitutional milestone defining India’s approach to reservations and equality. It harmonised the competing demands of social justice, merit, and efficiency, establishing enduring principles that continue to guide public policy and judicial interpretation.
By institutionalising the creamy layer doctrine, enforcing the 50% cap, and asserting that reservations are a tool for equality, not a right, the judgment continues to be a bedrock of India’s affirmative action jurisprudence, influencing subsequent constitutional amendments, legislation, and judicial precedents.