Indra Sawhney Case (1992)

The Indra Sawhney case (1992) upheld OBC reservations, introduced the creamy layer, set a 50% cap, and reshaped India’s quota system.

Indra Sawhney Case (1992): Landmark Judgment on Reservations

Syllabus: Polity & Constitution
Source: Supreme Court Judgments

Context

The Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case (1992), popularly known as the Mandal Commission case, is one of the most important Supreme Court rulings on reservation in India. It examined the constitutional validity of providing 27% reservation to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government jobs and education.

Background of Reservation Debate

Kaka Kalelkar Commission (1953):

First Backward Classes Commission under Article 340.
Submitted report in 1955 but was largely ignored.

Mandal Commission (1979):

Second Backward Classes Commission under B.P. Mandal.
Recommended 27% reservation for OBCs in addition to 22.5% for SCs/STs.
Suggested preference to poorer OBCs.
Implemented in 1991 by P.V. Narasimha Rao government with modifications (economic criteria, 10% quota for economically weaker sections among upper castes—later struck down).

The decision led to nationwide protests and legal challenges, bringing the issue before the Supreme Court.

Key Arguments

In Favour:

Reservation necessary to uplift socially and educationally backward classes.
Essential for ensuring equality of opportunity (Article 16).
Follows recommendations of Kalelkar and Mandal Commissions.

Against:

Quotas perpetuate caste divisions and social tensions.
Violates the principle of merit and equality of opportunity.
Encourages reverse discrimination against non-beneficiaries.

Supreme Court Judgment (1992)

Delivered by a 9-judge bench with 6:3 majority. Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy authored the main opinion.

Major Findings:

Constitutionality of OBC Reservation: Upheld 27% reservation for OBCs.
Creamy Layer Principle: Advanced sections of OBCs (socially/economically well-off) to be excluded.
Reservation in Promotions: Not allowed under Article 16(4); applicable only at the stage of initial recruitment.
50% Ceiling Rule: Total reservation should not exceed 50% (except in extraordinary cases).
Carry Forward Rule: Allowed but must not breach the 50% ceiling.
Permanent Body: Recommended a statutory body to examine inclusion/exclusion of OBCs → led to the creation of NCBC.

Government Response & Amendments

Ram Nandan Committee (1993): Identified creamy layer among OBCs.
National Commission for Backward Classes (1993): Set up under statute; later given constitutional status by 102nd Amendment, 2018 (Article 338B).

Major Amendments Post-Judgment:

77th Amendment (1995): Inserted Article 16(4A), enabling reservation in promotions for SCs/STs.
81st Amendment (2000): Inserted Article 16(4B)¹, allowing carry forward of unfilled reserved vacancies.
85th Amendment (2001): Provided consequential seniority in promotions for SC/ST employees.
76th Amendment (1994): Placed Tamil Nadu’s 69% reservation law in Ninth Schedule.
103rd Amendment (2019): Introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).

Aftermath & Later Developments

M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006): Upheld reservation in promotions but imposed conditions (backwardness, inadequate representation, administrative efficiency).
Mukesh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand (2020): SC clarified that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions.
State Legislations: Several states enacted promotion-reservation laws; e.g., Karnataka’s 2018 law on consequential seniority upheld in 2019.

Significance of Indra Sawhney Case

Cemented the “creamy layer” doctrine as a constitutional requirement for OBC reservations.
Established the 50% ceiling rule as a benchmark for affirmative action.
Balanced social justice and meritocracy by preventing over-expansion of quotas.
Set the stage for constitutional amendments that shaped today’s reservation framework.

UPSC Relevance

Polity & Constitution: Interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 16.
Governance: Role of judiciary in social justice.
Society: Reservation debates, caste and equality.

Conclusion

The Indra Sawhney judgment represents judicial pragmatism in balancing social justice with constitutional equality. It safeguarded reservation for disadvantaged groups while introducing checks like the creamy layer and 50% ceiling. Even after three decades, debates on reservation continue, making this case central to understanding India’s affirmative action policies.