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.
| --style="font-size: small"--> | ||
|---|---|---|
| Case | Ruling | Notes |
| State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan [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 [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. |
| Syndicate Bank SC & ST Employees Association & Others v. Union of India & Others | 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] | This judgment was implemented only in Syndicate Bank to April 1993. |
| Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India [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] [9] At no point should the reservation exceed 50%.[10] | Judgement implemented, with 27% central government reservation for OBCs. 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. |
| General Manager Southern Railway v. Rangachari , State of Punjab v. Hiralal | 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 [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 , Ajitsingh Januja & Others v. State of Punjab | ||
| M. G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka | 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 | 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 | 77th Constitution amendment (Art 16(4 A) & (16 4B) introduced to invalidate judgement. | |
| M. Nagraj & Others v. Union of India and Others. | 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. 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). |
| R. K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab | A roster to select members for a body is to operate only until the reservation quota is reached, and thereafter disposed. | |
| Union of India v. Varpal Singh , Ajitsingh Januja & Others v. State of Punjab | 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, 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 | Upheld the constitutionality of the 85th amendment. | The 85th constitutional amendment added consequential seniority to Art 16 (4)(A) |
| S. Vinodkumar v. Union of India | 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 | 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. | |
| Sudam Shankar Baviskar v. Edu. Off. (Sec), Z. P. Jalgaon | Consequential seniority is not available to VJNT. | |
| Union of India v. S. Kalugasalamoorthy | Reserved quotas are not counted for a person selected on the basis of his own seniority. | |
| I. R. Coelho (deceased) by LRS. v. State of Tamil Nadu | 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. |
| Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Others. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others. | 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). | This was overruled in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka (2002 8 SCC 481) |
| P. A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra | 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 | 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 [16] | 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 [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. |