E. Reservation, Equality & Affirmative Action
Free study material · concepts, shortcuts & solved questions
| Case | Year | Bench | Holding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras | 1951 | — | Struck down caste-based reservation in college admissions as violating Art. 29(2) — led directly to the First Constitutional Amendment (1951) inserting Art. 15(4) to permit such reservation. |
| State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas | 1976 | 7-judge | Held Art. 16(4) (reservation in public employment) is not an exception to but an facet of the equality guaranteed by Art. 16(1); upheld a scheme giving SC/ST employees extra time to pass a qualifying test for promotion. |
| Indira Sawhney v. Union of India ("Mandal case") | 1992 | 9-judge | Upheld 27% OBC reservation in public employment; introduced the "creamy layer" exclusion; capped total reservation at 50% (with narrow exceptions); initially barred reservation in promotions (later reversed by constitutional amendment). |
| M. Nagaraj v. Union of India | 2006 | 5-judge | Upheld the constitutional validity of Arts. 16(4A)/(4B) (reservation in promotions with consequential seniority) but required the State to first demonstrate backwardness, inadequate representation, and no impact on overall efficiency, for each instance. |
| Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India | 2008 | 5-judge | Upheld 27% OBC reservation in central higher-education institutions under the 93rd Amendment, with mandatory creamy-layer exclusion for OBCs. |
| Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta | 2018 | 5-judge | Modified Nagaraj — held the State need not collect quantifiable data to prove backwardness of SCs/STs (they are presumed backward), though inadequate representation and efficiency still need justification; also extended the creamy-layer concept to SC/ST promotion quotas. |
| Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (EWS case) | 2022 | 5-judge | 3:2 — upheld the 103rd Amendment's 10% EWS (Economically Weaker Sections) quota; held economic criteria alone can validly justify a reservation, and that excluding SC/ST/OBC beneficiaries from this particular quota is not discriminatory. |
Notes. This is a self-contained lineage on its own: Champakam Dorairajan (why Art. 15(4)/16(4) exist at all) → Indira Sawhney (creamy layer + 50% cap + no promotion quota) → Nagaraj (constitutional conditions on promotion quotas) → Jarnail Singh (relaxing Nagaraj's evidentiary burden) → EWS (a wholly new, non-caste ground for reservation, testing the 50% cap itself). Exams love asking which case introduced "creamy layer" (Indira Sawhney) versus which case extended it to SC/ST (Jarnail Singh) — keep those two distinct.
Mnemonic. "Champa Told Indira, Nagaraj, Ashoka and Jarnail to Earn it" — Champakam Dorairajan (1951) → N.M. Thomas (1976) → Indira Sawhney (1992) → Nagaraj (2006) → Ashoka Kumar Thakur (2008) → Jarnail Singh (2018) → EWS/Janhit Abhiyan (2022). Image: a teacher named Champa lining up students by year and telling each to "earn" their seat.
Practice Recall. Before reading on: which case introduced "creamy layer," and which later case extended that concept to SC/ST promotion quotas — don't mix them up.
Answer: Indira Sawhney (1992, the Mandal case) introduced "creamy layer" for OBCs; Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) extended the creamy-layer concept to SC/ST reservation in promotions, while also relaxing Nagaraj's (2006) requirement to collect quantifiable backwardness data.