Court cases related to reservation in India

The Indian judiciary has made judgments related to reservations, a system of affirmative action that provides for disadvantaged groups. These groups are primarily Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCs and STs), and from 1987 extended to Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Some of the court judgements have been modified by the Indian parliament.

Many of these cases are challenges under constitutional law and have led to constitutional amendments and challenges to the legality of such amendments. The frequency of decisions being overturned or invalidated reflect the ongoing efforts by lawmakers and the judiciary to strive towards equality.

Some major judgments are listed below. Supreme Court cases are noted by the case citation "SC" or "SCC". All entries must be cited to reliable sources.

Case	Ruling	Notes
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan AIR 1951 SC 226^[1]^[2]^[3]	Court ruled that caste-bass per Communal Award violate Article 15(1) of the constitution.	Led to the introduction of the First Amendment of the constitution, which invalidated the judgment.
M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649^[4]	The government's 68% reservation on college admissions was deemed excessive and unreasonable, and was capped at 50%.^[5]	Almost all states except Tamil Nadu (69%, under 9th schedule) and Rajasthan (68% quota including 14% for forwarding castes) have observed this 50% limit. Tamil Nadu exceeded the limit in 1980. Andhra Pradesh tried to exceed the limit in 2005, which was postponed by the high court.^{[citation needed]}
Syndicate Bank SC & ST Employees Association & Others v. Union of India & Others 1990 SCR(3) 713; 1990 SCC Supl. 350	Reaffirmed Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad v. Union of India in that reservation policy cannot be denied by method of selection, and was applicable to the highest level of promotion.^[6]^{[unreliable source?]}	This judgment was implemented only in Syndicate Bank to April 1993.
Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477^[7]	The constitution recognized social and educational backwardness, but not economic backwardness. The court upheld separate reservation for OBC in central government jobs, but excluded these to the "creamy layer" (the forward section of a backward class, above a certain income).^[8]^{[unreliable source?]}^[9] At no point should the reservation exceed 50%.^[10]	Judgement implemented, with 27% central government reservation for OBCs.^[9] However, some states denied the existence of the creamy layer, and a report commissioned by the supreme court was not implemented. The case was pressed again in 1999 and the supreme court reaffirmed the creamy layer exclusion and extended it to SCs and STs.^[7]
General Manager Southern Railway v. Rangachari AIR 1962 SC 36, State of Punjab v. Hiralal 1970(3) SCC 567	A divided court held that reservations could be made in promotions as well as appointments.	This was overruled in the 1992 case Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India.^[11]
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 246^[12]	Upheld the "carry forward rule" of the railway board in a selection of posts above 50% reservation, allowing for "some excess". This was overruled in Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India which held that reservations cannot be applied in promotions.	This led to the addition of clause 4A to article 16 of the constitution, empowering the state to make provision for reservation in promotion to any posts where SC/ST are not adequately represented.
Union of India v. Varpal Singh AIR 1996 SC 448, Ajitsingh Januja & Others v. State of Punjab AIR 1996 SC 1189	^[relevant?]
M. G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka 2001 (2) SCC 666	Articles 16 (4) and (4A) do not confer fundamental rights or constitutional duties, but invest discretion in the state to consider providing reservation.^[13]
Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association AIR 1998 SC 1767	When considering a single post, no reservation can be made (as it would amount to 100% reservation).^[14]
Ashok Kumar Gupta: Vidyasagar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1997 (5) SCC 201		77th Constitution amendment (Art 16(4 A) & (16 4B) introduced to invalidate judgement.^{[citation needed]}
M. Nagraj & Others v. Union of India and Others. AIR 2007 SC 71	Upheld the constitutionality of the 77th amendment.	1. Art. 16(4)(A) and 16(4)(B) flow from Art. 16(4) and do not alter the structure of Art. 16(4). 2. Backwardness and inadequacy of representation are the compelling reasons for providing reservations keeping in mind the overall efficiencies of state administration. 3. Government has to apply cadre strength as a unit in the operation of the roster in order to ascertain whether a given group is adequately represented in the service. The roster has to be post-specific with the inbuilt concept of replacement rather than being based on vacancies. 4. Direct recruitment to ensure adequate representation of a backward category may be made at the discretion of the authority. 5. Backlog vacancies are excluded from the 50% limit. 6. Reserved category candidates are entitled to compete for general category posts, and will not be counted against the quota limit. 7. Reserved candidates are entitled to compete with the general candidates for promotion to the general post. On their selection, they are to be adjusted in the general post as per the roster and the reserved candidates should be adjusted in the points earmarked in the roster to the reserved candidates.^{[clarification needed]} 8. Each post must be marked for the particular category of the candidate to be appointed, and any subsequent vacancy has to be filled by that category alone (replacement theory).^{[citation needed]}^{[undue weight? – discuss]}
R. K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab AIR 1995 SC 1371 : (1995) 2 SCC 745	A roster to select members for a body is to operate only until the reservation quota is reached, and thereafter disposed.^{[citation needed]}
Union of India v. Varpal Singh AIR 1996 SC 448, Ajitsingh Januja & Others v. State of Punjab AIR 1996 SC 1189 : 1995 2 SCC 715	Reserved-category candidates benefiting from accelerated promotion would not gain consequential seniority over general candidates when considering subsequent promotion.	This decision was overruled and reinstated in subsequent years,^{[note 1]} and M. G. Badappanvar v. State of Karnataka (2001[2] SCC 666: AIR 2001 SC 260) held that roster promotions were for the limited purpose of due representation at various levels of service, and did not confer seniority.
M. Nagraj & Others v. Union of India and Others AIR 2007 SC 71	Upheld the constitutionality of the 85th amendment.	The 85th constitutional amendment added consequential seniority^{[clarification needed]} to Art 16 (4)(A)^{[citation needed]}
S. Vinodkumar v. Union of India 1996 6 SCC 580	It is not permissible to relax standards of evaluation in matters of reservation in promotion	By the Constitution (82nd) Amendment Act a proviso was inserted at the end of Art 335. M. Nagraj & Others v. Union of India and Others (AIR 2007 SC 71) held the amendments constitutional.
Suraj Bhan Meena v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 1 SCC 467	Government rules for reservation cannot be introduced without quantifiable data of backwardness and underrepresentation.
S. Balakrishnan v. S. Chandrasekar 28/2/2005, The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. Registration Department SC/ST (9/12/2005)	The Madras High Court held that reservation in promotion is available only to SC and ST and not to OBC.^{[citation needed]}
Sudam Shankar Baviskar v. Edu. Off. (Sec), Z. P. Jalgaon 2007 (2) MhLJ 802	Consequential seniority is not available to VJNT.^{[expand acronym]}^{[citation needed]}
Union of India v. S. Kalugasalamoorthy 2010 writ no. 15926/2007	Reserved quotas are not counted for a person selected on the basis of his own seniority.^{[citation needed]}
I. R. Coelho (deceased) by LRS. v. State of Tamil Nadu 2007 (2) SCC 1: 2007 AIR(SC) 861	Supreme court advised Tamil Nadu to follow 50% reservation limit	Tamil Nadu Reservations were put under the 9th Schedule of the constitution, which had already been upheld by the court.^{[citation needed]}
Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Others. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others. 1993 (1) SCC 645	The right to establish educational institutions can neither be a trade or business nor can it be a profession within the meaning of Article 19(1)(g).^{[clarification needed]}	This was overruled in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka (2002 8 SCC 481)^{[citation needed]}
P. A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra 2005 AIR(SC) 3226	Reservations cannot be enforced on private educational institutions which do not receive government funding.	93rd constitutional amendment introduced Art 15(5).
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar 1995 5 SCC 403	The supreme court overruled further criteria Bihar and Uttar Pradesh had codified to identify the "creamy layer", such as educational qualifications and property holdings, as arbitrary and unconstitutional.^[15]
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India 2007 RD-SC 609^[16]^{[unreliable source?]}	Upheld the 93rd Amendment; found creamy layer principle applies to OBCs and not STs and SCs. The government must set reservation thresholds to ensure quality and merit do not suffer, and set a deadline to reach free and compulsory education for every child.	Recommended reviews of backwardness every 10 years.
Janhit Abhiyan vs Union Of India Writ Petition (Civil) No(S). 55 OF 2019^[17]	Upheld the 103rd Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in education and public employment.	It held that the 50% cap on quota is not inviolable and affirmative action on economic basis may go a long way in eradicating caste-based reservation.^[18]^[19] This constitutional amendment pushed the total reservation to 59.50% in central institutions.
State of Punjab v Davinder Singh 2024 INSC 562	The Supreme Court held that the State has powers to sub-classify the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The application of principle of creamy layer to reservations for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is justified.

Footnotes

Notes

^ Overruled in Jagdish Lal and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (1997) 6 SCC 538, which was in turn overruled by Ajitsingh Januja & Others v. State of Punjab & Others AIR 1999 SC 3471.

References

^ "State of Madras Vs Smt.Champakam Dorairajan". Legal Service India. Archived from the original on 29 October 2009. Retrieved 3 May 2010.
^ Basavaraju, C. (2009). "Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives". Journal of the Indian Law Institute. 51 (2): 269. JSTOR 43953443.
^ Rao, P. P.; Padmanabhan, Ananth (2013). "Legislative Circumvention of Judicial Restrictions on Reservations: Political Implications". National Law School of India Review: 54–55. JSTOR 44283609.
^ Rao, P. P.; Padmanabhan, Ananth (2013). "Legislative Circumvention of Judicial Restrictions on Reservations: Political Implications". National Law School of India Review: 56–. JSTOR 44283609.
^ Basavaraju, C. (2009). "Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives". Journal of the Indian Law Institute. 51 (2): 270. JSTOR 43953443.
^ "Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes ... Vs Union of India, Through Its ... On 10 August, 1990". Archived from the original on 2019-06-21. Retrieved 2020-03-29.
^ ^a ^b "Court, quota and cream". The Indian Express. 20 October 2006. Archived from the original on 13 May 2008. Retrieved 17 November 2011.
^ "Indra Sawhney Etc. vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. on 16 November, 1992". IndianKanoon.org. Archived from the original on 17 September 2012. Retrieved 22 August 2012. (4) Reservation being an extreme form of protective measure or affirmative action it should be confined to a minority of seats. Even though the Constitution does not lay down any specific bar but the constitutional philosophy being against proportional equality the principle of balancing equality ordains reservation, of any manner, not to exceed 50%." , "Reservation in promotion is constitutionally impermissible as once the advantaged and disadvantaged are made equal and are brought in one class or group then any further benefit extended for promotion on the inequality existing prior to being brought in the group would be treating equals unequally. It would not be eradicating the effects of past discrimination but perpetuating it.
^ ^a ^b Nair, Shalini (18 April 2017). "BJP's OBC pitch: How stronger new backward classes panel will function". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 15 April 2019. Retrieved 28 March 2020.
^ Basavaraju, C. (2009). "Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives". Journal of the Indian Law Institute. 51 (2): 271. JSTOR 43953443.
^ Rao, P. P.; Padmanabhan, Ananth (2013). "Legislative Circumvention of Judicial Restrictions on Reservations: Political Implications". National Law School of India Review: 62. JSTOR 44283609.
^ Basavaraju, C. (2009). "Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives". Journal of the Indian Law Institute. 51 (2): 271. JSTOR 43953443.
^ Basavaraju, C. (2009). "Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives". Journal of the Indian Law Institute. 51 (2): 271–272. JSTOR 43953443.
^ Basavaraju, C. (2009). "Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives". Journal of the Indian Law Institute. 51 (2): 272. JSTOR 43953443.
^ Rao, P. P.; Padmanabhan, Ananth (2013). "Legislative Circumvention of Judicial Restrictions on Reservations: Political Implications". National Law School of India Review: 59. JSTOR 44283609.
^ Supreme Court Judgement Archived 2011-07-15 at the Wayback Machine Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India
^ Supreme Court Judgement
^ "Supreme Court upholds EWS quota in 3-2 split verdict, CJI in minority". The Times of India.
^ Rajagopal, Krishnadas (7 November 2022). "Reservation policy cannot stay for indefinite period, says Supreme Court". The Hindu.

Court cases related to reservation in India

Footnotes

Notes

References

Further reading