Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)

Constitutional Law I · Protective Discrimination — Articles 15 & 16

Facts.

The Union government announced 27% reservation in central jobs for Other Backward Classes, acting on the Mandal Commission report, and later added a further 10% for the poor among forward classes. The reservations were challenged as excessive and caste-based.

Issue.

How far may reservation under Article 16(4) extend, and what limits control it?

Held.

A nine-judge Bench upheld reservation for OBCs but fixed three lasting controls: reservations should ordinarily not exceed 50%; the “creamy layer” — the advanced and well-off within a backward class — must be excluded; and backwardness is to be judged mainly on social criteria, with caste a permissible starting indicator. It also held that reservation could not extend to promotions (later reversed by the 77th Amendment).

Why it matters.

It is the master authority on the outer limits of reservation — every later reservation dispute begins from the 50% ceiling and the creamy-layer rule laid down here.

📚 Read this case in context: Protective Discrimination — Articles 15 & 16 · All landmark cases · All CL-I topics

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹299) — every topic and case with model answers, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle