Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): The Landmark Judgment That Reshaped Reservation in India

Introduction

Reservation in India has always been a sensitive and complex subject. One judgment that fundamentally shaped the legal framework around it is the Indra Sawhney Case (1992) case. Popularly known as the Mandal Commission case, it addressed the legality, scope, and limitations of caste-based reservations in public employment.

Background of the Case

In 1979, the Indian government formed the Mandal Commission to identify socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) and recommend measures for their upliftment. The Commission proposed a 27% reservation in central government jobs for OBCs.

In 1990, Prime Minister V.P. Singh announced the implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations. The country witnessed massive protests, and the matter reached the Supreme Court through multiple writ petitions—ultimately consolidated under Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.

Key Legal Questions

The Supreme Court considered:

• Can caste be used as a criterion for identifying backwardness?
• Is the 27% OBC reservation constitutionally valid?
• Should there be a limit on total reservations?
• Can reservations be extended to promotions?
• How should the “creamy layer” be treated?

Supreme Court Verdict (1992)

A nine-judge bench delivered a historic judgment with far-reaching implications:

1. Caste as a Criterion: The Court upheld the use of caste as a valid indicator of social and educational backwardness.
2. 27% OBC Quota Upheld: The reservation was considered constitutionally valid under Article 16(4).
3. Introduction of ‘Creamy Layer’: The Court excluded the economically advanced among OBCs from reservation benefits to ensure targeted social justice.
4. 50% Cap on Reservations: The Court ruled that total reservations should not exceed 50%, maintaining a balance with merit-based selection.
5. No Reservation in Promotions: The judgment prohibited reservation in promotions, preserving efficiency in administration.

Aftermath and Constitutional Amendments

In response to this judgment, the government introduced the 77th Constitutional Amendment (1995), adding Article 16(4A), allowing reservations in promotions for SCs and STs. This was later upheld in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) with certain conditions.

Significance of the Judgment

This case continues to be the cornerstone of India’s reservation policy. It:

• Balanced social justice with meritocracy
• Prevented misuse of reservation by the elite sections of backward classes
• Established judicial guidelines on how and when reservation can be extended

Conclusion

The Indra Sawhney case is a guiding light for policymakers, lawyers, and scholars. It reminds us that reservation is not merely a tool for representation—it is a carefully structured constitutional mechanism to ensure equality in a deeply unequal society.

LexPrabh.com remains committed to making such complex legal issues understandable and accessible to all. Stay tuned for more legal updates and insights.