Court cases related to reservation in India

Last updated

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.

Contents

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.

CaseRulingNotes
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
AIR 1951 SC 226 [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
AIR 1963 SC 649 [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.[ citation needed ]
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 reservation policy cannot be denied by method of selection, and was applicable to the highest level of promotion. [6] [ unreliable source? ]This judgment was implemented only in Syndicate Bank to April 1993.
Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India
AIR 1993 SC 477 [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] [ unreliable source? ] [9] At no point should the reservation exceed 50%. [10] Judgement implemented, with 27% central government reservation for OBCs. [9] 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. [7]
General Manager Southern Railway v. Rangachari
AIR 1962 SC 36,
State of Punjab v. Hiralal
1970(3) SCC 567		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
(1981) 1 SCC 246 [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
AIR 1996 SC 448,

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

[ relevant? ]
M. G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka
2001 (2) SCC 666		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
AIR 1998 SC 1767		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
1997 (5) SCC 201		77th Constitution amendment (Art 16(4 A) & (16 4B) introduced to invalidate judgement.[ citation needed ]
M. Nagraj & Others v. Union of India and Others.
AIR 2007 SC 71		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.[ clarification needed ] 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).[ citation needed ][ undue weight? – discuss ]
R. K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab
AIR 1995 SC 1371 : (1995) 2 SCC 745		A roster to select members for a body is to operate only until the reservation quota is reached, and thereafter disposed.[ citation needed ]
Union of India v. Varpal Singh
AIR 1996 SC 448,
Ajitsingh Januja & Others v. State of Punjab
AIR 1996 SC 1189 : 1995 2 SCC 715		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, [note 1] 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
AIR 2007 SC 71		Upheld the constitutionality of the 85th amendment.The 85th constitutional amendment added consequential seniority[ clarification needed ] to Art 16 (4)(A)[ citation needed ]
S. Vinodkumar v. Union of India
1996 6 SCC 580		It is not permissible to relax standards of evaluation in matters of reservation in promotionBy 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
(2011) 1 SCC 467		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.[ citation needed ]
Sudam Shankar Baviskar v. Edu. Off. (Sec), Z. P. Jalgaon
2007 (2) MhLJ 802		Consequential seniority is not available to VJNT.[ expand acronym ][ citation needed ]
Union of India v. S. Kalugasalamoorthy
2010 writ no. 15926/2007		Reserved quotas are not counted for a person selected on the basis of his own seniority.[ citation needed ]
I. R. Coelho (deceased) by LRS. v. State of Tamil Nadu
2007 (2) SCC 1: 2007 AIR(SC) 861		Supreme court advised Tamil Nadu to follow 50% reservation limitTamil Nadu Reservations were put under the 9th Schedule of the constitution, which had already been upheld by the court.[ citation needed ]
Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Others. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others.
1993 (1) SCC 645		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).[ clarification needed ]This was overruled in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka (2002 8 SCC 481)[ citation needed ]
P. A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra
2005 AIR(SC) 3226		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
1995 5 SCC 403		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
2007 RD-SC 609 [16] [ unreliable source? ]		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
Writ Petition (Civil) No(S). 55 OF 2019 [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.
State of Punjab v Davinder Singh

2024 INSC 562

The Supreme Court held that the State has powers to sub-classify the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The application of principle of creamy layer to reservations for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is justified.

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.

Related Research Articles

The chief instrument through which judicial activism has flourished in India is public interest litigation (PIL) or social action litigation (SAL). It refers to litigation undertaken to secure public interest and demonstrates the availability of justice to socially-disadvantaged parties and was introduced by Justice P. N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer. It is a relaxation on the traditional rule of locus standi. Before 1980s the judiciary and the Supreme Court of India entertained litigation only from parties affected directly or indirectly by the defendant. It heard and decided cases only under its original and appellate jurisdictions. However, the Supreme Court began permitting cases on the grounds of public interest litigation, which means that even people who are not directly involved in the case may bring matters of public interest to the court. It is the court's privilege to entertain the application for the PIL.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in India</span>

Capital punishment in India is a legal penalty for some crimes under the country's main substantive penal legislation, the Indian Penal Code, as well as other laws. Executions are carried out by hanging as the primary method of execution per Section 354(5) of the Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973 is "Hanging by the neck until dead", and is imposed only in the 'rarest of cases'.

The Other Backward Class (OBC) is a collective term used by the Government of India to classify communities that are "educationally or socially backward". It is one of several official classifications of the population of India, along with general castes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The OBCs were found to comprise 52% of the country's population by the Mandal Commission report of 1980 and were determined to be 41% in 2006 when the National Sample Survey Organisation took place. There is substantial debate over the exact number of OBCs in India; it is generally estimated to be sizable, but many believe that it is higher than the figures quoted by either the Mandal Commission or the National Sample Survey.

The Mandal Commission or the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Commission (SEBC), was established in India in 1979 by the Janata Party government under Prime Minister Morarji Desai with a mandate to "identify the socially or educationally backward classes" of India. It was headed by B. P. Mandal, an Indian member of parliament, to consider the question of reservations for people to address caste discrimination, and to use eleven social, economic, and educational indicators to determine backwardness. In 1980, based on its rationale that OBCs identified on the basis of caste, social, economic indicators made up 52% of India's population, the commission's report recommended that members of Other Backward Classes (OBC) be granted reservations to 27% of jobs under the central government and public sector undertakings and seats in the higher education institutions, thus making the total number of reservations for SC, ST and OBC to 49.5%.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nani Palkhivala</span> Great Indian jurist and economist

Nanabhoy "Nani" Ardeshir Palkhivala was an Indian lawyer and jurist. Being lead counsel in cases such as Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala, I.C. Golaknath and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anrs., Minerva Mills v. Union of India garnered him international recognition and cemented his reputation as one of India’s most eminent advocates.

Reservation is a system of affirmative action in India created during the British rule. Based on provisions in the Indian Constitution, it allows the Union Government and the States and Territories of India to set a percentage of reserved quotas or seats, in higher education admissions, employment, political bodies, etc., for "socially and economically backward citizens".

The basic structure doctrine is a common law legal doctrine that the constitution of a sovereign state has certain characteristics that cannot be erased by its legislature. The doctrine is recognised in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Uganda. It was developed by the Supreme Court of India in a series of constitutional law cases in the 1960s and 1970s that culminated in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where the doctrine was formally adopted. Bangladesh is perhaps the only legal system in the world which recognizes this doctrine with an expressed, written and rigid constitutional manner through article 7B of its Constitution.

Creamy layer is a term used in Indian reservation system to refer to some members of a backward class who are highly advanced socially as well as economically and educationally. They constitute the forward section of that particular backward class – as forward as any other forward class member. They are not eligible for government-sponsored educational and professional benefit programs. The term was introduced by the Sattanathan Commission in 1971, which directed that the "creamy layer" should be excluded from the reservations (quotas) of civil posts. It was also identified later by Justice Ram Nandan Committee in 1993.

The Constitution of India provides the right to freedom, given in article 19 with the view of guaranteeing individual rights that were considered vital by the framers of the constitution. The right to freedom in Article 19 guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, as one of its six freedoms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ashok Desai</span> Indian lawyer (1932–2020)

Ashok H. Desai was an Indian lawyer, practising in the Supreme Court of India. He held office as the Attorney General of India from 9 July 1996 to 6 May 1998. Earlier, he was the Solicitor General of India from 18 December 1989 to 2 December 1990. He was awarded the Padma Bhushan award and the Law Luminary Award in 2001. He was given an honorary doctorate in "recognition of his contribution to the field of law and jurisprudence" by the North Orissa University in September 2009.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Karnataka State Law University</span> State University in Karnataka

The Karnataka State Law University (KSLU) is an Indian state university in Navanagar, Hubli, Karnataka

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pavani Parameswara Rao</span> Indian lawyer

Pavani Parameswara Rao was a Senior Advocate practising in the Supreme Court of India. Widely considered a doyen of Constitutional Law, he had argued a number of landmark cases before the Supreme Court. He died on 13 September 2017 in a private hospital in South Delhi following a cardiac arrest, India.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">National Commission for Backward Classes</span> Indian Government Social Justice Agency

The National Commission for Backward Classes is an Indian constitutional body under the jurisdiction of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India established through Constitution Act, 2018 this amendment act in the constitution to make it a constitutional body under Article 338B of the Indian Constitution. It was constituted pursuant to the provisions of the National Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1993.

Police Complaints Authority (PCA) is a body that adjudicates allegations of improper or shoddy investigations, refusal to file FIRs, custodial torture and high-handedness against the police. But its recommendations are high authorities and recognised governmental authority upon the state government for action against errant police personnel. Seventeen States have established the PCAs through State Police Acts, while ten states have done this through executive orders with a long-term goal of the PCAs is changing the policing culture and making it thoroughly professional.

Judicial review in India is a process by which the Supreme Court and the High Courts of India examine, determine and invalidate the Executive or Legislative actions inconsistent with the Constitution of India. The word judicial review finds no mention in the Constitution of India but The Constitution of India implicitly provides for judicial review through Articles 13, 32 and through 136, 142 and 226.

Youth For Equality is an Indian organisation against caste-based policies and reservations, i.e. affirmative action. It was founded by students in a number of Indian universities in 2006. It organises demonstrations and legal challenges against caste-based policies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India</span> Indian public interest litigation case

Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India also known as the Mandal verdict was an Indian landmark public interest litigation case delivered by a 9-judge constitution bench.

Article 15 of the Constitution of India forbids discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, gender, or place of birth or any of them. It applies Article 14's general principle of equality in specific situations by forbidding classifications made on protected grounds. While prohibiting discrimination based on prejudice, the Article is also the central issue in a large body of judicial decisions, public debate, and legislation revolving around affirmative action, reservations, and quotas. As of the 103rd Amendment of the Constitution of India, Article 15.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">One Hundred and Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India</span> Amendment of 2021

The One Hundred and Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of India- officially known as The Constitution Act, 2021- restored the power of State governments to recognise socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs). SEBCs, which includes the groups commonly known as Other Backward Classes (OBCs), are communities for which the State can provide "special provisions" or affirmative action in India.

References

  1. ↑ "State of Madras Vs Smt.Champakam Dorairajan". Legal Service India. Archived 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.
  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.
  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.
  5. ↑ Basavaraju, C. (2009). "Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives". Journal of the Indian Law Institute. 51 (2): 270. JSTOR   43953443.
  6. ↑ "Syndicate Bank Scheduled Castes ... Vs Union of India, Through Its ... On 10 August, 1990". Archived from the original on 2019-06-21. Retrieved 2020-03-29.
  7. 1 2 "Court, quota and cream". The Indian Express . 20 October 2006. Archived from the original on 13 May 2008. Retrieved 17 November 2011.
  8. ↑ "Indra Sawhney Etc. vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. on 16 November, 1992". IndianKanoon.org. Archived from the original on 17 September 2012. Retrieved 22 August 2012. (4) Reservation being an extreme form of protective measure or affirmative action it should be confined to a minority of seats. Even though the Constitution does not lay down any specific bar but the constitutional philosophy being against proportional equality the principle of balancing equality ordains reservation, of any manner, not to exceed 50%." , "Reservation in promotion is constitutionally impermissible as once the advantaged and disadvantaged are made equal and are brought in one class or group then any further benefit extended for promotion on the inequality existing prior to being brought in the group would be treating equals unequally. It would not be eradicating the effects of past discrimination but perpetuating it.
  9. 1 2 Nair, Shalini (18 April 2017). "BJP's OBC pitch: How stronger new backward classes panel will function". The Indian Express . Archived from the original on 15 April 2019. Retrieved 28 March 2020.
  10. ↑ Basavaraju, C. (2009). "Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives". Journal of the Indian Law Institute. 51 (2): 271. JSTOR   43953443.
  11. ↑ Rao, P. P.; Padmanabhan, Ananth (2013). "Legislative Circumvention of Judicial Restrictions on Reservations: Political Implications". National Law School of India Review: 62. JSTOR   44283609.
  12. ↑ Basavaraju, C. (2009). "Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives". Journal of the Indian Law Institute. 51 (2): 271. JSTOR   43953443.
  13. ↑ Basavaraju, C. (2009). "Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives". Journal of the Indian Law Institute. 51 (2): 271–272. JSTOR   43953443.
  14. ↑ Basavaraju, C. (2009). "Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives". Journal of the Indian Law Institute. 51 (2): 272. JSTOR   43953443.
  15. ↑ Rao, P. P.; Padmanabhan, Ananth (2013). "Legislative Circumvention of Judicial Restrictions on Reservations: Political Implications". National Law School of India Review: 59. JSTOR   44283609.
  16. ↑ Supreme Court Judgement Archived 2011-07-15 at the Wayback Machine Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India
  17. ↑ Supreme Court Judgement
  18. ↑ "Supreme Court upholds EWS quota in 3-2 split verdict, CJI in minority". The Times of India .
  19. ↑ Rajagopal, Krishnadas (7 November 2022). "Reservation policy cannot stay for indefinite period, says Supreme Court". The Hindu.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.