View source for Court cases related to reservation in India

{{short description|List of reservation court cases in India}}
__NOTOC__
{{multiple issues |1=
{{refimprove|date=March 2020}}
{{more footnotes|date=March 2020}}
}}
The [[Judiciary of India|Indian judiciary]] has made judgments related to [[Reservation in India|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 Class]]es (OBCs). Some of the court judgements have been modified by the [[Parliament of India|Indian parliament]].

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 of India|Supreme Court]] cases are noted by the [[Case citation#Supreme Court of India|case citation]] "SC" or "SCC". All entries must be cited to reliable sources.<!--All cases mentioned here should be notable enough to have their own articles; if their entries grow to the size of a stub, split them off to a separate article. The descriptions here should be kept very brief.-->

{| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="8" <!--style="font-size: small"-->
|-- bgcolor="lightgreen"
! Case
! Ruling
! Notes
|--
|''[[State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan]]''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|[[Case citation#Supreme Court of India|AIR 1951 SC 226]]}}}}<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l95-The-State-of-Madras-vs.-Smt.-Champakam-Dorairajan.html|title=State of Madras Vs Smt.Champakam Dorairajan|work=Legal Service India|accessdate=3 May 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091029161423/http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l95-The-State-of-Madras-vs.-Smt.-Champakam-Dorairajan.html|archive-date=29 October 2009|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal
 | last = Basavaraju | first =  C.
 | authorlink = 
 | year = 2009
 | title = Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives
 | journal = Journal of the Indian Law Institute
 | volume = 51 | number = 2 | page = 269
 | jstor = 43953443
}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal
 | last1 = Rao | first1 =  P.&nbsp;P.
 | last2 = Padmanabhan | first2 =  Ananth
 | year = 2013
 | title = Legislative Circumvention of Judicial Restrictions on Reservations: Political Implications
 | journal = National Law School of India Review
 | pages = 54–55
 | jstor = 44283609
}}</ref>
|Court ruled that caste-based reservations as per [[Communal Award]] violate Article 15(1) of the constitution.
|Led to the introduction of the [[First Amendment of the Constitution of India|First Amendment]] of the constitution, which invalidated the judgment.
|-
|''M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|AIR 1963 SC 649}}}}<ref>{{cite journal
 | last1 = Rao | first1 =  P.&nbsp;P.
 | last2 = Padmanabhan | first2 =  Ananth
 | year = 2013
 | title = Legislative Circumvention of Judicial Restrictions on Reservations: Political Implications
 | journal = National Law School of India Review
 | pages = 56–
 | jstor = 44283609
}}</ref>
|The government's 68% reservation on college admissions was deemed excessive and unreasonable, and was capped at 50%.<ref>{{cite journal
 | last = Basavaraju | first =  C.
 | authorlink = 
 | year = 2009
 | title = Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives
 | journal = Journal of the Indian Law Institute
 | volume = 51 | number = 2 | page = 270
 | jstor = 43953443
}}</ref>
|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|date=March 2020}}
|-
|''Syndicate Bank SC & ST Employees Association <!--(Through its General Secretary Sh K S Badalia)--> & Others v. Union of India & Others''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|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.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1550782/ |title=Archived copy |access-date=2020-03-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190621033359/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1550782/ |archive-date=2019-06-21 |url-status=live }}</ref>{{unreliable source|date=March 2020}}
|This judgment was implemented only in Syndicate Bank to April&nbsp;1993.
|-
|[[Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India]]<br />{{nowrap|{{small|AIR 1993 SC 477}}}}<ref name="ExpressCream">{{cite news |url=http://www.indianexpress.com/story/14983.html |work=[[The Indian Express]] |title=Court, quota and cream |date=20 October 2006 |access-date=17 November 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080513223328/http://www.indianexpress.com/story/14983.html |archive-date=13 May 2008 |url-status=live }}</ref>
|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).<ref name="Indra Sawhney Etc. vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. on 16 November 1992">{{cite web|title=Indra Sawhney Etc. vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. on 16 November, 1992|url=http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1363234/|publisher=IndianKanoon.org|accessdate=22 August 2012|quote="(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."|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120917000604/http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1363234/|archive-date=17 September 2012|url-status=live}}</ref>{{unreliable source|date=March 2020}}<ref name="NairBackward">{{cite web|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/bjps-obc-pitch-how-stronger-new-backward-classes-panel-will-function-4617203/|title=BJP's OBC pitch: How stronger new backward classes panel will function|date=18 April 2017|first=Shalini|last=Nair|work=[[The Indian Express]]|access-date=28 March 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190415011610/https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/bjps-obc-pitch-how-stronger-new-backward-classes-panel-will-function-4617203/|archive-date=15 April 2019|url-status=live}}</ref> At no point should the reservation exceed 50%.<ref>{{cite journal
 | last = Basavaraju | first =  C.
 | authorlink = 
 | year = 2009
 | title = Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives
 | journal = Journal of the Indian Law Institute
 | volume = 51 | number = 2 | page = 271
 | jstor = 43953443
}}</ref>
|Judgement implemented, with 27% central government reservation for OBCs.<ref name="NairBackward" /> 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.<ref name="ExpressCream" />
|-
|''General Manager Southern Railway v. Rangachari''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|AIR 1962 SC 36}}}},<br />''State of Punjab v. Hiralal''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|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]]''.<ref>{{cite journal
 | last1 = Rao | first1 =  P.&nbsp;P.
 | last2 = Padmanabhan | first2 =  Ananth
 | year = 2013
 | title = Legislative Circumvention of Judicial Restrictions on Reservations: Political Implications
 | journal = National Law School of India Review
 | page = 62
 | jstor = 44283609
}}</ref>
|-
|''Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|(1981) 1 SCC 246}}}}<ref>{{cite journal
 | last = Basavaraju | first =  C.
 | authorlink = 
 | year = 2009
 | title = Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives
 | journal = Journal of the Indian Law Institute
 | volume = 51 | number = 2 | page = 271
 | jstor = 43953443
}}</ref>
|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''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|AIR 1996 SC 448}}}},<br />
''Ajitsingh Januja & Others v. State of Punjab''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|AIR 1996 SC 1189}}}}
|{{relevance inline|date=March 2020}}
|
|-
|''M. G. Badappanavar v. State of Karnataka''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|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.<ref>{{cite journal
 | last = Basavaraju | first =  C.
 | authorlink = 
 | year = 2009
 | title = Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives
 | journal = Journal of the Indian Law Institute
 | volume = 51 | number = 2 | page = 271–272
 | jstor = 43953443
}}</ref>
|
|-
|''Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v.  Faculty Association''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|AIR 1998 SC 1767}}}}
|When considering a single post, no reservation can be made (as it would amount to 100% reservation).<ref>{{cite journal
 | last = Basavaraju | first =  C.
 | authorlink = 
 | year = 2009
 | title = Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives
 | journal = Journal of the Indian Law Institute
 | volume = 51 | number = 2 | page = 272
 | jstor = 43953443
}}</ref>
|
|-
|''Ashok Kumar Gupta: Vidyasagar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|1997 (5) SCC 201}}}}
|
|77th Constitution amendment (Art 16(4 A) & (16 4B) introduced to invalidate judgement.{{citation needed|date=March 2020}}
|-
|''M. Nagraj & Others v. Union of India and Others.''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|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.{{clarify|date=March 2020}} 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|date=March 2020}}{{undue weight inline|date=March 2020|Source and split this into its own article, or remove. It's too long for this table and gives the importance of this case undue weight in the history of reservation law.}}
|-
|''R. K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|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|date=March 2020}}
|
|-
|''Union of India v. Varpal Singh''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|AIR 1996 SC 448}}}},<br />''Ajitsingh Januja & Others v. State of Punjab''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|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,{{notetag|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.}} and ''M.&nbsp;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''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|AIR 2007 SC 71}}}}
|Upheld the constitutionality of the 85th amendment.
|The 85th constitutional amendment added consequential seniority{{clarify|date=March 2020}} to Art 16 (4)(A){{citation needed|date=March 2020}}
|-
|''S. Vinodkumar v. Union of India''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|1996 6 SCC 580}}}}
| It is not permissible to relax standards of evaluation in matters of reservation in promotion
|By 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''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|(2011) 1 SCC 467}}}}
|<!--in view of ''M. Nagraj & Others v. Union of India''-->Government rules for reservation cannot be introduced without quantifiable data of backwardness and underrepresentation.
|
|-
|''S. Balakrishnan v. S. Chandrasekar''<br />28/2/2005,<br />''The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. Registration Department SC/ST''<br />(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|date=March 2020}}
|
|-
|''Sudam Shankar Baviskar v. Edu. Off. (Sec), Z.&nbsp;P. Jalgaon''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|2007 (2) MhLJ 802}}}}
|Consequential seniority is not available to VJNT.{{expand acronym|date=March 2020}}{{citation needed|date=March 2020}}
|
|-
|''Union of India v. S. Kalugasalamoorthy''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|2010 writ no. 15926/2007}}}}
|Reserved quotas are not counted for a person selected on the basis of his own seniority.{{citation needed|date=March 2020}}
|
|-
|''I. R. Coelho (deceased) by LRS. v. State of Tamil Nadu''<br />{{nowrap|{{small| 2007 (2) SCC 1: 2007 AIR(SC) 861}}}}
|Supreme court advised Tamil Nadu to follow 50% reservation limit
|Tamil Nadu Reservations were put under the 9th Schedule of the constitution, which had already been upheld by the court.{{citation needed|date=March 2020}}
|-
|''Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Others. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others.''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|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).{{clarify|date=March 2020}}
|This was overruled in ''T.M.A. Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka'' (2002 8 SCC 481){{citation needed|date=March 2020}}
|-
|''[[P. A. Inamdar]] v. State of Maharashtra''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|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''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|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.<ref>{{cite journal
 | last1 = Rao | first1 =  P.&nbsp;P.
 | last2 = Padmanabhan | first2 =  Ananth
 | year = 2013
 | title = Legislative Circumvention of Judicial Restrictions on Reservations: Political Implications
 | journal = National Law School of India Review
 | pages = 59
 | jstor = 44283609
}}</ref>
|
|-
|''[[Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India]]''<br />{{nowrap|{{small|2007 RD-SC 609}}}}<ref>[http://www.rishabhdara.com/sc/view.php?case=22294 Supreme Court Judgement] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110715185723/http://www.rishabhdara.com/sc/view.php?case=22294 |date=2011-07-15 }} Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India</ref>{{unreliable source|date=March 2020}}
|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.
|-
|}
== Footnotes ==
===Notes===
{{NoteFoot}}

=== References ===
<references />

==Further reading==
* Articles 12, 14, 15, 16, 19, 335 of the [[Constitution of India]]
* ''State of Madras v. Smt. Champakam Dorairanjan'' AIR 1951 SC 226
* ''General Manager, S. Rly v. Rangachari'' AIR 1962 SC 36
* ''M R Balaji v. State of Mysore'' AIR 1963 SC 649
* ''T. Devadasan v. Union'' AIR 1964 SC 179.
* ''C. A. Rajendran v. Union of India'' AIR 1965 SC 507
* ''Chamaraja v. Mysore'' AIR 1967 Mys 21
* ''Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board'' AIR 1967 SC 295
* ''P. Rajendran v. State of Madras'' AIR 1968 SC 1012
* ''Triloki Nath v. The state of Jammu and Kashmir'' AIR 1969 SC 1
* ''State of Punjab v. Hira Lal'' 1970(3) SCC 567
* ''State of A.P. v. U.S.V. Balram'' AIR 1972 SC 1375
* ''[[Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala]]'' AIR 1973 SC 1461
* ''State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas'' AIR 1976 SC 490 : (1976) 2 SCC 310
* ''Jayasree v. State of Kerala'' AIR 1976 SC 2381
* ''Minerva Mills Ltd v. Union'' (1980) 3 SCC 625: AIR 1980 SC 1789
* ''Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib''  AIR 1981 SC 487
* ''Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union'' (1981) 1 SCC 246
* ''K. C. Vasant Kumar v. Karnataka'' AIR 1985 SC 1495
* ''Comptroller & Auditor-General of India, Gian Prakash v. K. S. Jaggannathan'' (1986) 2 SCC 679
* ''Syndicate Bank SC & ST Employees Association (Through its General Secretary Sh K S Badalia) & Others v. Union of India & Others'' {1990 SCR(3) 713; 1990 SCC Supl. 350}:
* ''Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. A. P. State Electricity Board'' (1991) 3SCC 299
* ''[[Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India]]'' AIR 1993 SC 477: 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
* ''Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. and Others'' (1993 (1) SCC 645)
* ''R K Sabharwal v. State of Punjab'' AIR 1995 SC 1371 : (1995) 2 SCC 745
* ''Union of India v. Varpal Singh'' AIR 1996 SC 448
* ''Ajitsingh Januja & Others v. State of Punjab'' AIR 1996 SC 1189
* ''Ashok Kumar Gupta: Vidyasagar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh'' 1997 (5) SCC 201
* ''Jagdish Lal and others v. State of Haryana and Others'' (1997) 6 SCC 538
* ''Chander Pal & Others v. State of Haryana'' (1997) 10 SCC 474
* ''Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh v.  Faculty Association 1998'' AIR(SC) 1767 : 1998 (4) SCC 1
* ''Ajitsingh Januja & Others v. State of Punjab & Others'' AIR 1999 SC 3471
* ''[[Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India]]'' AIR 2000 SC 498
* ''M G Badappanvar v. State of Karnataka'' 2001(2) SCC 666: AIR 2001 SC 260
* ''T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka'' (2002) 8 SCC 481
* ''NTR University of Health Science Vijaywada v. G Babu Rajendra Prasad'' (2003) 5 SCC 350
* ''Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Others'' (2003) 6 SCC 697
* ''Saurabh Chaudri & Others. v. Union of India & Others'' (2003) 11 SCC 146
* ''[[P.A. Inamdar]] v. State of Maharashtra'' 2005 AIR(SC) 3226
* ''I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRS. v. State of {{abbr|T.N.|Tamil Nadu}}'' 2007 (2) SCC 1: 2007 AIR(SC) 861
* ''M. Nagraj & Others v. Union of India and Others'' AIR 2007 SC 71
* ''Ashok Kumara Thakur v. Union of India'' 2008
* ''K. Manorama v. Union of India'' (2010) 10 SCC 323
* ''Suraj Bhan Meena v. State of Rajasthan'' (2011) 1 SCC 467

{{Reservation in India}}

[[Category:Reservation in India]]
[[Category:India law-related lists]]