Pratidin
Society, justice and ethicsJudgements1992

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India

Upheld OBC reservation with a 50% ceiling and exclusion of the creamy layer.

Written by Pratidin; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work

A nine-judge bench. It also held there could be no reservation in promotions under Article 16(4); later amendments addressed this.

The central wing of the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, which houses the Chief Justice's courtroom.
The central wing of the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, which houses the Chief Justice's courtroom. Subhashish Panigrahi, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Practise this in the app: flashcards, quiz and a timed answer
Prelims

Quick recall

What is Indra Sawhney also called?
The Mandal case.
What ceiling did it set on reservation?
50%, except in extraordinary situations.
What did it say about the creamy layer?
Advanced OBCs must be excluded from reservation benefits.
How large was the bench?
Nine judges.
Which amendment allowed SC/ST reservation in promotions?
The 77th Amendment (1995), adding Article 16(4A).
Which case upheld the 10% EWS quota?
Janhit Abhiyan (2022).

Asked before in UPSC

Recurring theme: Reservation, backward classes and the balance between formal and substantive equality

Mains
  1. 2024 · GS1 · 15 marks

    Despite comprehensive policies for equity and social justice, underprivileged sections are not yet getting the full benefits of affirmative action envisaged by the Constitution. Comment.

    Indra Sawhney's creamy layer exclusion and 50% ceiling shape the debate on whether reservation benefits reach the most deprived.

  2. 2022 · GS2 · 10 marks

    Discuss the role of the National Commission for Backward Classes in the wake of its transformation from a statutory body to a constitutional body.

    Indra Sawhney directed a permanent body for backward classes, which led to the NCBC that the 102nd Amendment later made constitutional.

  3. 2021 · GS2 · 15 marks

    Analyze the distinguishing features of the notion of Equality in the Constitutions of the USA and India.

    Indra Sawhney treats reservation as part of equality under Article 16(4), a key contrast with the US approach to affirmative action.

Prelims
  1. 2023 · Prelims

    Consider the following statements: Statement-I: The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgements that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for maintenance of efficiency of administration. Statement-II: Article 335 of the Constitution of India defines the term 'efficiency of administration'. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

    Indra Sawhney and later cases read Article 16(4) reservations together with the efficiency of administration clause in Article 335.

The basics

Why it matters

Indra Sawhney (1992), the Mandal case, set the framework for reservation in India: it upheld 27% OBC reservation in central jobs, capped total reservation at 50% save in extraordinary situations, and excluded the creamy layer.

50%
Ceiling on total reservation
Exceptions only in extraordinary situations.

Key holdings

The judgment answered several questions at once.

Indra Sawhney holdings
  1. 1OBC reservation27% upheld
  2. 250% ceilingNormal upper limit
  3. 3Creamy layerAdvanced OBCs excluded
  4. 4PromotionsNo reservation under Article 16(4)

What happened next

Parliament and courts responded to parts of the ruling.

After Indra Sawhney
  1. 199577th Amendment: SC/ST reservation in promotions
  2. 2006M. Nagaraj sets conditions for promotions quota
  3. 2019103rd Amendment: 10% EWS quota
  4. 2022Janhit Abhiyan upholds EWS quota
  5. 2024SC allows sub-classification of SCs

You now know

  • Upheld 27% OBC reservation in central government jobs.
  • Set a 50% ceiling, barring extraordinary situations.
  • Excluded the creamy layer among OBCs.
  • Held there can be no reservation in promotions under Article 16(4).

Go deeper

In one line: Indra Sawhney decided how far reservation can go and who within backward classes should benefit.

Why it matters for UPSC

Every debate on quotas, from Maratha reservation to EWS, refers to it.

The core idea

The Court accepted caste as a marker of backwardness but limited reservation to protect merit and equality, capping it at 50% and excluding the Creamy layer. It arose from the Mandal Commission report.

Where to go next

In one line: The 50% rule balances equality of opportunity with substantive equality, but it is under strain.

Pressures on the ceiling

State demands such as Maratha reservation (struck down in 2021) and the 10% EWS quota, which took total reservation above 50%.

EWS and the ceiling

In Janhit Abhiyan (2022), the Court held the 50% limit applies to caste-based reservation, not EWS.

Continuing issues

Updating the Creamy layer income limit and data on OBC representation; the Mandal Commission data is decades old.

Where to go next

Mandal Commission

The report behind OBC reservation

In one line: The Second Backward Classes Commission (1979-80), chaired by B.P. Mandal, recommended 27% reservation for OBCs.

Identification

It used social, educational and economic indicators and identified over 3,700 castes as backward.

Implementation

The V.P. Singh government implemented it in 1990, leading to the Indra Sawhney case.

Where to go next

Creamy layer

Who is excluded from OBC benefits

In one line: The creamy layer is the relatively advanced section among OBCs who are excluded from reservation.

Criteria

Income and status tests, such as parents' posts; the income limit is ₹8 lakh a year, set in 2017.

Extension

Courts have discussed applying creamy layer ideas to SC/ST promotions.

Where to go next

Prelims-style quiz

  1. The creamy layer concept for OBCs comes from:

    1. Golak Nath
    2. M.C. Mehta
    3. Indra Sawhney
    4. Kesavananda Bharati
    Show answer

    Answer: (c) Indra Sawhney. Indra Sawhney (1992).

  2. Consider the following:
    1. Indra Sawhney set a 50% ceiling on reservation.
    2. It allowed reservation in promotions under Article 16(4).
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    1. 1 only
    2. 2 only
    3. Both 1 and 2
    4. Neither 1 nor 2
    Show answer

    Answer: (a) 1 only. It held there could be no reservation in promotions under Article 16(4).

  3. The Mandal Commission was chaired by:

    1. Kaka Kalelkar
    2. B.P. Mandal
    3. G.R. Kale
    4. Rohini
    Show answer

    Answer: (b) B.P. Mandal. B.P. Mandal.

  4. The EWS reservation was upheld in:

    1. Ashoka Kumar Thakur
    2. M. Nagaraj
    3. Janhit Abhiyan
    4. Jarnail Singh
    Show answer

    Answer: (c) Janhit Abhiyan. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022).

Syllabus

Related stories

Primary source