- CJI M.H. KaniaFavored (Majority)
- Justice M.N. VenkatachaliahFavored (Majority)
- Justice A.M. AhmadiFavored (Majority)
- Justice B.P. Jeevan ReddyFavored (Majority - Authored lead opinion)
- Justice S. Ratnavel PandianFavored (Majority)
- Justice P.B. SawantFavored (Majority)
- Justice T.K. ThommenOpposed/Part Dissent
- Justice Kuldip SinghOpposed/Dissent
- Justice R.M. SahaiOpposed/Part Dissent
- Constitution of India (Articles 14, 15(4), 16(1), 16(4), 340)
- Government Office Memorandums (O.M.) dated August 13, 1990 & September 25, 1991 (implementing Mandal recommendations)
- M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963)
- State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976)
- K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka (1985)
- State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)
- Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India (1981)
Popularly known as the Mandal Commission Case, this landmark judgment dealt with the constitutional validity of reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government jobs. The case arose from challenges to two Office Memorandums issued by the Government of India in 1990 and 1991, which sought to implement the recommendations of the Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission) by reserving 27% of posts for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs).
The 1991 memorandum also introduced a 10% reservation for economically backward sections among the forward castes. A 9-judge bench was constituted to examine the complex issues surrounding reservations, including the scope of Article 16(4), the criteria for identifying backward classes, the total limit on reservations, and reservations in promotions.
ARGUMENTS
Petitioners' Case (Indra Sawhney & Anti-Reservation Groups)
- Reservations based primarily on caste perpetuate the caste system and violate the principle of equality (Article 14, 16(1)).
- Article 16(4) is an exception to the general rule of equality in Article 16(1) and should be construed narrowly.
- Economic criteria, not caste, should be the basis for identifying backwardness.
- The Mandal Commission report was flawed and outdated.
- Total reservations should not exceed 50%, as held in M.R. Balaji.
- Reservations should not apply to promotions or certain specialized posts.
- The 10% reservation for economically backward sections among forward castes is unconstitutional as Article 16(4) only covers socially and educationally backward classes.
Respondents' Case (Union of India & Pro-Reservation Groups)
- Caste is a primary indicator and reality of social backwardness in India; ignoring it is unrealistic.
- Article 16(4) is not an exception but an integral part of equality, enabling substantive equality for historically disadvantaged groups.
- Backwardness under Article 16(4) is primarily social and educational, though economic factors can be considered.
- The Mandal report provides a reasonable basis for identifying OBCs.
- The 50% rule from M.R. Balaji was just an observation, not a binding rule; higher quotas may be needed.
- Reservations are necessary in promotions to ensure adequate representation at higher levels.
- The 10% economic reservation serves the goal of economic justice.
Case Progression Timeline
Mandal Commission Report
The Second Backward Classes Commission submits its report recommending 27% reservation for OBCs in government jobs and educational institutions.
December 1980First Office Memorandum (V.P. Singh Govt)
Government issues O.M. reserving 27% of central government posts for SEBCs based on the Mandal report.
August 13, 1990Widespread Protests & Petitions
The O.M. triggers nationwide protests and numerous writ petitions are filed in the Supreme Court challenging it.
Late 1990Second Office Memorandum (Narasimha Rao Govt)
Government issues another O.M. confirming the 27% OBC quota but adding a preference for poorer sections within OBCs and introducing a separate 10% quota for economically backward sections (EWS) among forward castes.
September 25, 1991Hearing by 9-Judge Bench
Supreme Court constitutes a 9-judge bench to hear all related petitions and authoritatively decide the law on reservations.
1991-1992Supreme Court Judgment (Indra Sawhney)
The 9-judge bench delivers its landmark judgment, upholding OBC reservation with conditions (50% ceiling, creamy layer exclusion) but striking down the 10% EWS quota.
November 16, 1992The Supreme Court, by a 6:3 majority on most issues, delivered a comprehensive judgment laying down the law on reservations. It upheld the constitutional validity of providing 27% reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs or OBCs) under Article 16(4), based on the Mandal Commission report, subject to certain conditions.
Key rulings included: 1. Backwardness under Article 16(4) must be social and educational, not just economic. Caste can be used as a criterion (often a starting point) for identifying SEBCs, but it cannot be the sole criterion. 2. Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1) but an instance of classification implicit in it, enabling substantive equality. 3. The "creamy layer" (socially advanced members) within the backward classes must be excluded from the benefit of reservation. 4. Total reservations should not exceed 50% in any given year (reaffirming the rule from M.R. Balaji), except in extraordinary situations. 5. Reservations should not apply to promotions (this was later modified by constitutional amendments). 6. The 10% reservation for economically backward sections among forward castes was struck down as unconstitutional, as Article 16(4) only permitted reservation based on social and educational backwardness, not purely economic criteria. (This is distinct from the later 103rd Amendment providing for EWS reservation under Articles 15(6) and 16(6)).
COURT'S ANALYSIS
Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy's lead majority opinion navigated the complex interplay between formal equality (Article 16(1)) and substantive equality (Article 16(4)). The Court acknowledged caste as a significant factor in Indian social reality, permitting its use in identifying backwardness while cautioning against it being the sole basis. The introduction of the 'creamy layer' concept was a crucial balancing act, aiming to ensure that reservations benefit the genuinely disadvantaged within the backward classes. The affirmation of the 50% ceiling aimed to balance the interests of reserved categories with those of the general category and maintain administrative efficiency. The striking down of the purely economic reservation highlighted the specific scope of Article 16(4) as it stood then. The judgment attempted to create a comprehensive framework, balancing affirmative action with principles of merit and equality, though debates on its implementation and nuances continue.
FINAL VERDICT
- The Office Memorandum dated August 13, 1990 (providing 27% OBC reservation) is valid and enforceable, subject to the exclusion of the creamy layer.
- Social and Educational Backwardness under Article 16(4) permits classification based on caste along with other factors, but not solely on caste. Economic criteria alone are insufficient.
- The "creamy layer" (socially advanced persons/sections) among the backward classes must be excluded from reservation benefits.
- Article 16(4) is not an exception but facilitates substantive equality within Article 16(1).
- Total reservations under Article 16(4) should not exceed 50% (except in extraordinary situations).
- Reservations under Article 16(4) are confined to initial appointments and do not extend to promotions.
- The Office Memorandum dated September 25, 1991, providing 10% reservation for economically backward sections is unconstitutional and struck down.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Article 16(4) permits reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. Backwardness contemplated under Article 16(4) is primarily social and educational, though economic backwardness may contribute to or result from it. Caste can be a permissible criterion for identifying backward classes but cannot be the sole criterion. Reservations under Article 16(4) must exclude the "creamy layer" and should generally be limited to a maximum of 50% of available posts in a year. Article 16(4) does not permit reservations in promotions. Reservation cannot be based solely on economic criteria under Article 16(4).
(Note: The aspect regarding reservations in promotions was later amended by the Constitution (77th, 81st, 82nd, 85th) Amendments. The aspect regarding purely economic reservation was addressed by the Constitution (103rd) Amendment, 2019, inserting Articles 15(6) and 16(6), whose validity was upheld in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India, 2022).