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

Court ruled that

caste-based Led to the introduction of the
State of Madras v. Champakam
reservations as per First Amendment of the
Dorairajan
Communal Award constitution, which invalidated
AIR 1951 SC 226[1][2][3]
violate Article 15(1) the judgment.
of the constitution.

Almost all states except Tamil

The government's Nadu (69%, under 9th schedule)
68% reservation on and Rajasthan (68% quota
college admissions including 14% for forwarding
M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore was deemed castes) have observed this 50%
AIR 1963 SC 649[4] excessive and limit. Tamil Nadu exceeded the
unreasonable, and limit in 1980. Andhra Pradesh
was capped at tried to exceed the limit in 2005,
[5]
50%. which was postponed by the
high court.

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
This judgment was implemented
reservation policy
only in Syndicate Bank to
cannot be denied by
April 1993.
method of selection,
and was applicable
to the highest level
of promotion.[6]

Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union The constitution Judgement implemented, with
of India recognized social 27% central government
AIR 1993 SC 477[7] and educational reservation for OBCs.[9] However,
backwardness, but some states denied the
not economic existence of the creamy layer,
backwardness. The and a report commissioned by
 court upheld the supreme court was not
separate reservation implemented. The case was
for OBC in central pressed again in 1999 and the
government jobs, supreme court reaffirmed the
but excluded these creamy layer exclusion and
to the "creamy layer" extended it to SCs and STs.[7]
(the forward section
of a backward class,
above a certain
income).[8][9] At no
point should the
reservation exceed
50%.[10]

General Manager Southern Railway A divided court held

v. Rangachari that reservations This was overruled in the 1992
AIR 1962 SC 36, could be made in case Indra Sawhney & Others v.
State of Punjab v. Hiralal promotions as well Union of India.[11]
1970(3) SCC 567 as appointments.

Upheld the "carry

forward rule" of the
railway board in a
selection of posts
This led to the addition of clause
above 50%
4A to article 16 of the
reservation, allowing
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari constitution, empowering the
for "some excess".
Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India state to make provision for
This was overruled
(1981) 1 SCC 246[12] reservation in promotion to any
in Indra Sawhney &
posts where SC/ST are not
Others v. Union of
adequately represented.
India which held that
reservations cannot
be applied in
promotions.

Union of India v. Varpal Singh

AIR 1996 SC 448,
Ajitsingh Januja & Others v. State of
Punjab
AIR 1996 SC 1189

Articles 16 (4) and

(4A) do not confer
fundamental rights
M. G. Badappanavar v. State of or constitutional
Karnataka duties, but invest
2001 (2) SCC 666 discretion in the
state to consider
providing
reservation.[13]

When considering a
Post-Graduate Institute of Medical single post, no
Education and Research, reservation can be
Chandigarh v. Faculty Association made (as it would
AIR 1998 SC 1767 amount to 100%
reservation).[14]

Ashok Kumar Gupta: Vidyasagar 77th Constitution amendment

Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Art 16(4 A) & (16 4B) introduced
1997 (5) SCC 201 to invalidate judgement.

M. Nagraj & Others v. Union of India Upheld the 1. Art. 16(4)(A) and 16(4)(B) flow
and Others. constitutionality of from Art. 16(4) and do not alter
AIR 2007 SC 71 the 77th the structure of Art. 16(4). 2.
amendment. 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

AIR 1995 SC 1371 : (1995) 2 SCC 745 members for a body
is to operate only
until the reservation
 quota is reached,
and thereafter
disposed.

Reserved-category
This decision was overruled and
candidates
reinstated in subsequent
benefiting from
years,[note 1] and M. G.
Union of India v. Varpal Singh accelerated
Badappanvar v. State of
AIR 1996 SC 448, promotion would not
Karnataka (2001[2] SCC 666: AIR
Ajitsingh Januja & Others v. State of gain consequential
2001 SC 260) held that roster
Punjab seniority over
promotions were for the limited
AIR 1996 SC 1189 : 1995 2 SCC 715 general candidates
purpose of due representation at
when considering
various levels of service, and did
subsequent
not confer seniority.
promotion.

Upheld the The 85th constitutional

M. Nagraj & Others v. Union of India
constitutionality of amendment added
and Others
the 85th consequential seniority to Art 16
AIR 2007 SC 71
amendment. (4)(A)

By the Constitution (82nd)

S. Vinodkumar v. Union of India
1996 6 SCC 580
It is not permissible Amendment Act a proviso was
to relax standards of inserted at the end of Art 335.
evaluation in
M. Nagraj & Others v. Union of
matters of
India and Others (AIR 2007 SC
reservation in
71) held the amendments
promotion
constitutional.

Government rules
for reservation
Suraj Bhan Meena v. State of cannot be
Rajasthan introduced without
(2011) 1 SCC 467 quantifiable data of
backwardness and
underrepresentation.
S. Balakrishnan v. S. Chandrasekar The Madras High
28/2/2005, Court held that
The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. reservation in
Registration Department SC/ST promotion is
(9/12/2005) available only to SC
and ST and not to
OBC.

Sudam Shankar Baviskar v. Edu. Consequential

Off. (Sec), Z. P. Jalgaon seniority is not
2007 (2) MhLJ 802 available to VJNT.

Reserved quotas are

Union of India v. S. not counted for a
Kalugasalamoorthy person selected on
2010 writ no. 15926/2007 the basis of his own
seniority.

Supreme court Tamil Nadu Reservations were

I. R. Coelho (deceased) by LRS. v.
advised Tamil Nadu put under the 9th Schedule of
State of Tamil Nadu
to follow 50% the constitution, which had
2007 (2) SCC 1: 2007 AIR(SC) 861
reservation limit already been upheld by the court.

The right to
establish
educational
Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Others. v. institutions can This was overruled in T.M.A. Pai
State of Andhra Pradesh & Others. neither be a trade or Foundation v State of Karnataka
1993 (1) SCC 645 business nor can it (2002 8 SCC 481)
be a profession
within the meaning
of Article 19(1)(g).

P. A. Inamdar v. State of Reservations cannot 93rd constitutional amendment

Maharashtra be enforced on introduced Art 15(5).
2005 AIR(SC) 3226 private educational
institutions which do
 not receive
government funding.

The supreme court

overruled further
criteria Bihar and
Uttar Pradesh had
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. State of codified to identify
Bihar the "creamy layer",
1995 5 SCC 403 such as educational
qualifications and
property holdings,
as arbitrary and
unconstitutional.[15]

Upheld the 93rd

Amendment; found
creamy layer
principle applies to
OBCs and not STs
and SCs. The
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of government must
Recommended reviews of
India set reservation
backwardness every 10 years.
2007 RD-SC 609[16] thresholds to ensure
quality and merit do
not suffer, and set a
deadline to reach
free and compulsory
education for every
child.

Janhit Abhiyan vs Union Of India Upheld the 103rd It held that the 50% cap on quota
Writ Petition (Civil) No(S). 55 OF 2019[17] Amendment which is not inviolable and affirmative
introduced 10% action on economic basis may
reservation for go a long way in eradicating
Economically caste-based reservation.[18][19]
Weaker Section This constitutional amendment
 (EWS) in education pushed the total reservation to
and public 59.50% in central institutions.
employment.

Footnotes

Notes
1. 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
1. "State of Madras Vs Smt.Champakam Dorairajan" (http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l9
5-The-State-of-Madras-vs.-Smt.-Champakam-Dorairajan.html) . Legal Service India. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/20091029161423/http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l95-
The-State-of-Madras-vs.-Smt.-Champakam-Dorairajan.html) from the original on 29 October
2009. Retrieved 3 May 2010.

2. Basavaraju, C. (2009). "Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives".
Journal of the Indian Law Institute. 51 (2): 269. JSTOR 43953443 (https://www.jstor.org/stabl
e/43953443) .

3. 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 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/44283609) .

4. Rao, P. P.; Padmanabhan, Ananth (2013). "Legislative Circumvention of Judicial Restrictions on

Reservations: Political Implications". National Law School of India Review: 56–.
JSTOR 44283609 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/44283609) .

5. Basavaraju, C. (2009). "Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives".
Journal of the Indian Law Institute. 51 (2): 270. JSTOR 43953443 (https://www.jstor.org/stabl
e/43953443) .

6. "Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes ... Vs Union of India, Through Its ... On 10 August, 1990" (ht
tps://indiankanoon.org/doc/1550782/) . Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2019062103
3359/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1550782/) from the original on 2019-06-21. Retrieved
2020-03-29.