• Today: November 01, 2025

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 477)

01 November, 2025
1451
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992/1993) – Reservation, Creamy Layer, Articles 15 & 16 | The Law Easy

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 477)

Supreme Court of India 1992/1993 AIR 1993 SC 477 9-Judge Bench Equality & Reservation ~9 min India

Author: Gulzar Hashmi  •  Location: India  •  Published:

Slug: indra-sawhney-v-union-of-india-air-1993-sc-477

Illustration for Indra Sawhney (Mandal) case explainer

Quick Summary

This famous case (Mandal) settled core rules on reservation in public jobs. The Court upheld 27% OBC reservation, introduced the creamy layer filter, rejected a 10% economic-only quota for higher castes, and said Article 16(4) is not an “exception” to 16(1) but a clear form of allowed classification. Backwardness is mainly social, with educational and economic effects.

CASE_TITLE: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 477) PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Indra Sawhney, Mandal case, OBC reservation, creamy layer SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Article 16(1), Article 16(4), Article 15(4), 27% quota PUBLISH_DATE: 24-10-2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India

Issues

  • Is Article 16(4) an exception to Article 16(1), or a part of it?
  • Is the classification mainly by caste, or by economy?
  • Are “backward classes” in Article 16(4) the same as SEBCs in Article 15(4)?

Rules

  • Article 16(1), 16(4), 15(4), 340(1) of the Constitution are key.
  • 16(4) is an instance of allowed classification under 16(1), not a narrow exception.
  • Backwardness is primarily social; education and economy reflect that social base.
  • Economic-only reservation in jobs (then) not permitted under 16(1)/16(4).
  • Creamy layer must be excluded from OBC benefits.

Facts (Timeline)

1950s: Kaka Kalelkar Commission lists many backward groups; report not accepted.
Jan 1, 1979: Mandal Commission (SEBC) formed by Janata Government under B.P. Mandal.
Report: ~3743 OBC castes identified; recommends 27% job reservation.
Aug 13, 1990: V.P. Singh Government issues O.M. for 27% OBC reservation → nationwide protests.
1990–1991: Litigation begins; interim stays; later Government adds economic tweaks incl. 10% for higher-caste “economically backward”.
Referral: 5-Judge Bench refers the matter to a 9-Judge Bench for final decision.
Timeline graphic for Indra Sawhney (Mandal) case

Arguments

Petitioners

  • 27% quota is excessive; caste-based lists are unfair.
  • Reservation should not rest mainly on caste; economic criteria should matter more.
  • 16(4) should be read narrowly as an exception to 16(1).

Union of India

  • Mandal data shows social backwardness needing affirmative action.
  • 16(4) is part of equality—permits classification to reach real equality.
  • Preference may be given to poorer sections among OBCs.

Judgment

The Supreme Court (6:3) upheld 27% reservation for OBCs in public employment, with priority for the poorer sections within OBCs. It struck down a separate 10% quota for economically backward among higher castes. The Court clarified that 16(4) is not an exception to 16(1); it is a specific method of classification permitted by 16(1). It required the exclusion of the creamy layer from OBC benefits.

Judgment visual for Indra Sawhney (Mandal) case

Ratio Decidendi

Backward class in Article 16(4) means mainly socially backward groups; their educational and economic weakness flows from social status. 16(4) is a tool within 16(1) to reach equality of opportunity. Purely economic reservation (then) not allowed under 16(1)/16(4). Creamy layer must be filtered out so benefits reach the truly backward.

Why It Matters

  • Set the constitutional roadmap for OBC reservation and exclusions.
  • Balanced equality of opportunity with social justice goals.
  • Shaped later rulings on creamy layer and reservation design.

Key Takeaways

  1. 27% OBC quota upheld; economic-only quota (10%) for higher castes struck down.
  2. 16(4) is part of 16(1)’s equality design, not a narrow exception.
  3. Backwardness = mainly social; creamy layer excluded.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “SEE = Social, Exclude creamy, Equality via 16(4)”

  • Social: Backwardness is mainly social.
  • Exclude creamy: Filter out the well-off OBCs.
  • Equality via 16(4): It’s a method within 16(1), not an exception.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Nature of 16(4); basis of classification; link between 16(4) and 15(4); validity of 27% OBC reservation and economic-only quota.

Rule

16(4) is permitted classification under 16(1); backwardness mainly social; creamy layer exclusion; no economic-only quota (then).

Application

Mandal data supports OBC backwardness; 27% is justified; creamy layer must be removed; 10% economic-only fails constitutional test.

Conclusion

27% OBC reservation upheld with creamy layer; economic-only quota struck down; 16(4) complements 16(1).

Glossary

Backward Classes (Art. 16(4))
Groups that are mainly socially backward, causing educational and economic disadvantage.
Creamy Layer
Relatively well-off members of OBCs who are excluded from reservation benefits.
Reservation
Special seats/posts set aside to improve real equality of opportunity.

FAQs

No. It is a tool within 16(1) to achieve true equality by valid classification.

It rejected the 10% quota for economically backward among higher castes under 16(1)/16(4) in this case.

Primarily by social backwardness, supported by educational and economic indicators and official lists.

A filter to exclude well-off OBCs—so that reservation benefits reach the truly backward groups.
  • CASE_TITLE: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 477)
  • PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Indra Sawhney, Mandal case, OBC reservation, creamy layer
  • SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Article 16(1), Article 16(4), Article 15(4), 27% quota
  • PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-10-24
  • AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi
  • LOCATION: India
  • SLUG: indra-sawhney-v-union-of-india-air-1993-sc-477

Comment

Nothing for now