Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 477)
Author: Gulzar Hashmi • Location: India • Published:
Slug: indra-sawhney-v-union-of-india-air-1993-sc-477
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.
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)
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.
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
- 27% OBC quota upheld; economic-only quota (10%) for higher castes struck down.
- 16(4) is part of 16(1)’s equality design, not a narrow exception.
- 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
Related Cases
M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963)
Article 15(4) ReservationState of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976)
Article 16 EqualityM. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)
Promotion Data & Creamy LayerJarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)
Creamy Layer OBC/SC-ST NuancesFooter
Reviewed by The Law Easy
- 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
Share
Tags
Archive
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now