Indra Sawhney vs Union of India
This is a landmark case concerning reservation in India, backward classes, and the concept of creamy layer.
1. Case Name:
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477; (1992) 1 SCC 477
2. Facts of the Case
Petitioner: Indra Sawhney, a government employee.
Respondent: Union of India and various states implementing reservation policies.
Background:
The case arose from challenges to government orders providing reservation to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public employment under Articles 15(4) and 16(4).
The main question concerned the constitutionality and scope of reservation for backward classes, particularly:
Percentage of reservation
Exclusion of the creamy layer from OBC reservation
Whether reservation can exceed 50%
Key Issue:
Whether the reservation policy for OBCs violates Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.
3. Legal Issues
Extent of Reservation:
Can reservation in public employment exceed 50%?
Identification of Backward Classes:
Criteria for identifying backward classes.
Role of the “creamy layer” exclusion.
Fundamental Rights:
Whether reservation violates equality under Article 14 or equal opportunity under Article 16.
4. Supreme Court’s Analysis
Reservation Policy:
Reservation is valid under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) to promote social and educational backwardness.
Purpose is equality of opportunity and upliftment of socially/economically backward classes.
Exclusion of Creamy Layer:
Affluent or socially advanced members of backward classes (creamy layer) cannot claim reservation benefits.
Ensures reservation benefits only the truly backward.
Percentage Limit:
Court held reservation should not exceed 50% to maintain balance between equality and affirmative action.
Exceptions only in extraordinary circumstances.
Equality Principle (Article 14):
Reservation is reasonable classification, not arbitrary discrimination.
Mandate for Identification:
Backward classes should be identified on caste, social, and educational criteria.
State must review periodically to ensure fairness.
5. Judgment
Supreme Court held:
Reservation for OBCs is constitutionally valid.
Creamy layer should be excluded from reservation benefits.
Reservation ceiling is 50% except in extraordinary circumstances.
Courts can review identification of backward classes to prevent misuse.
Significance:
Introduced the creamy layer concept.
Ensured reservation policy upholds equality while promoting backward classes.
Balanced social justice with meritocracy.
6. Key Principles Established
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Basis | Articles 15(4) and 16(4) allow reservation for socially and educationally backward classes |
| Creamy Layer | Wealthier and socially advanced members of backward classes excluded from reservation |
| Reservation Limit | Ceiling of 50% to ensure fairness |
| Identification of Backward Classes | Must be based on objective social and educational criteria |
| Judicial Oversight | Courts can review state policies for misuse or arbitrariness |
7. Later Developments
Creamy Layer Doctrine:
Became standard for OBC reservation in public employment and education.
Periodic Review:
State governments must periodically update backward class lists to maintain fairness.
Impact on Reservation Policy:
Ensures affirmative action reaches intended beneficiaries without unfairly displacing general category candidates.
8. Conclusion
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) is a landmark case on reservation and social justice in India:
Confirmed constitutional validity of OBC reservation.
Introduced creamy layer exclusion to prevent misuse.
Fixed 50% ceiling for reservations, balancing equality and affirmative action.
Laid down criteria for backward class identification and judicial oversight.
RELATED Blog
0 comments