Court Cases & Constitutional Amendments related to reservations in India

The basis of providing reservation is giving proportionate opportunities to the people of Scheduled Castes, Schedule Tribes and other backward classes. The reservation is intended to aggrandise the social diversity in campuses and workplaces. Reservation in our Country is known as ”Quota” system.

Article 15(1) of Indian Constitution lays down that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.

Lot of verdicts of our Indian Judiciary as to reservations have been modified subsequently by our parliament through Constitutional Amendments Acts. However, some rulings of our Courts have been scoffed by State and Central Governments. Some Judgments upheld the reservations and some rulings for fine turning its implementation regarding reservations. In this context, it is also appropriate to see observation of a Distinguished Teaching Professor at the University of Texas at Austin. ”While reservation is a political hot button, it is about societal endurance, ethics, and value issues. If it is a pure political solution then, unfortunately, premier institutions will probably lose the battle”.

Soon after the enforcement of the Constitution two cases reached this Court from the State of Madras – one under Article 15 and the other under Article 16. Both the cases were decided on the same date and by the same Bench. The one arising under Article 15 is State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan [1951] and the other arising under Article 16 is Venkataraman v. State of Madras ,1951.

State of Madras Vs. Smt. Champakam Dorairanjan, 1951

Court pronounced that caste based reservations as per Communal Award violates Article 15(1).

The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951

(Art. 15 (4)) introduced to make judgement invalid.

Art. 15 (4): Nothing in this article or in Clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

M R Balaji v Mysore 1963

For the purpose of Article 15(4), backwardness must be both social and educational. Though caste in relation to Hindus may be a relevant factor to consider, in determining the social backwardness of a class of citizens, it cannot be made the sole and dominant test. Christians, Jains and Muslims do not believe in caste system; the test of caste cannot be applied to them. If identification of all backward classes has been made solely on the basis of caste, it is bad.

Percentage of reservations should be less than 50 per cent.

A provision under Article 15(4) need not be in the form of legislation; it can be made by an executive order.

The further categorisation of backward classes into backward and more backward is not warranted by Article 15(4).

Almost all states except Tamil Nadu (69%, Under 9th schedule) and Rajasthan (68% quota including 14% for forward castes, post Gujjar violence 2008) has not exceeded 50% limit. Tamil Nadu exceeded limit in 1980. Andhra Pradesh tried to exceed limit in 2005 which was again stalled by high court.

Devadasan v. Union of India, 1963

The majority held that the carry forward rule which resulted in more than 50 per cent of the vacancies being reserved in a particular year, is bad.

Chitralekha v. State of Mysore 1964

The majority speaking held the identification or classification of backward classes on the basis of occupation-cum-income, without reference to caste, is not bad and does not offend Article 15(4).

Minor P.Rajendran v. State of Madras, 1968

Related to specification of socially and educationally backward classes with reference to castes

It must not be forgotten that a caste is also a class of citizens and if the caste as a whole is socially and educationally backward reservation can be made in favour of such a caste on the ground that it is a socially and educationally backward class of citizens within the meaning of Article 15(4)

In General Manager, S. Rly. v. Rangachari , 1962 ; State of Punjab v. Hiralal ,1970 ; Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India (1981)

it was held that Reservation of appointments or posts under Article 16(4) included promotions.

Indira Sawhney & Ors v. Union of India. 1993

1. Upheld implementation of separate reservation for other backward classes in central government jobs.
2. Ordered to exclude Creamy layer of other backward classes from enjoying reservation facilities.
3. Ordered to restrict reservations within 50% limit.
4. Declared separate reservations for economically poor among forward castes as invalid.
5. Caste is a class of citizens and that if a caste as a whole is socially and educationally backward, reservation can be made in favour of such a caste on the ground that it is a socially and educationally backward class of citizens within the meaning of Article 15(4).
6. Reservations cannot be applied in promotions but gave 5 yr window.
7. Article 16(1) does permit reasonable classification for ensuring attainment of the equality of opportunity assured by it. Article 16(4) is an instance of such classification, put in to place the matter beyond controversy

The Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995

(Art 16(4 A) & (16 4B) introduced to make judgement as invalid.

(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.

(4B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent. reservation on total number of vacancies of that year.

In Union of India Vs Varpal Singh , 1996 and Ajit singh Januja & Ors Vs State of Punjab , 1996

It was held that a roster point promotees getting the benefit of accelerated promotion would not get consequential seniority and the seniority between the reserved category candidates and general candidates in promoted category shall be governed by their panel position.

S. Vinodkumar Vs. Union of India, 1996

Held that relaxation of qualifying marks and standard of evaluation in matters of reservation in promotion was not permissible

This was overruled in Jagdish Lal and others v. State of Haryana and Others ,1997

It held that the date of continuous officiation has to be taken into account and if so, the roster- point promotees were entitled to the benefit of continuous officiation.

Jagdish Lal and others v. State of Haryana and Others (1997)

it held that the date of continuous officiation has to be taken into account and if so, the roster- point promotees were entitled to the benefit of continuous officiation.

Ajitsingh Januja & Ors Vs State of Punjab & Ors AIR 1999

overruled Jagdish Lal

The Constitution (Eighty-second Amendment) Act, 2000

A proviso was inserted at the end of Art 335 as under-

[Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent in making of any provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.]

Decided to move for constitutional amendment with a view to restore the relaxation of qualifying marks and standards of evaluation in matters of reservation in promotion reversing the Indira Sawhney judgment that held such relaxations as being not permissible under article 16(4) in view of the command contained in article 335 of the Constitution

M G Badappanvar Vs St of Karnataka ,2001

held that roster promotions were meant only for the limited purpose of due representation of backward classes at various levels of service and therefore, such roster promotions did not confer consequential seniority to the roster point promotee.

The Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001

Consequential Seniority was inserted in Art 16 (4)(A) to make the judgement invalid.

(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.

M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and Ors. , 2007 held the 77th amendments constitutional.

1. Art. 16(4)(A) and 16(4)(B) flow from Art. 16(4).
2. Those constitutional amendments do not alter structure of Art. 16(4).
3. Backwardness and inadequacy of representation are the controlling/compelling reasons for the state to provide reservations keeping in mind the overall efficiencies of state administration.
4. Government has to apply cadre strength as a unit in the operation of the roaster in order to ascertain whether a given class/group is adequately represented in the service. Roaster has to be post specific with inbuilt concept of replacement and not vacancy based.
5. If any authority thinks that for ensuring adequate representation of backward class or category, it is necessary to provide for direct recruitment therein, it shall be open to do so.
6. Backlog vacancies to be treated as a distinct group and are excluded from the ceiling limit of 50%.
7. If a member from reserved category gets selected in general category, his selection will not be counted against the quota limit provided to his class and reserved category candidates are entitled to compete for the general category post.
8. The reserved candidates are entitled to compete with the general candidates for promotion to the general post in their own right. 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.
9. Each post gets marked for the particular category of candidate to be appointed against it and any subsequent vacancy has to be filled by that category alone (replacement theory).
10. M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and Ors. held the 85 amendments constitutional.
11. M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and Ors. , 2007 held the  82 amendments constitutional.

Suraj Bhan Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan. 2010

Held that, in view of M. Nagraj & Ors v. Union of India and Ors. , 2007, if the state wants to frame rules with regard to reservation in promotions and consequential seniority it has to satisfy itself with quantifiable data that is there is backwardness, inadequacy of representation in public employment and overall administrative inefficiency and unless such an exercise was undertaken by the state government the rules in promotions and consequential seniority cannot be introduced.

1994 Supreme court advised Tamil Nadu to follow 50% limit Tamil Nadu Reservations put under 9th Schedule of the constitution.

In Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 

it was held that 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).

This was overruled in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002), P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra 2005 Supreme court ruled that reservations cannot be enforced on Private Unaided educational institutions.

The Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005

Introduced Art 15(5).

(5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.]

Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India.

1. The Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2005 does not violate the “basic structure” of the Constitution so far as it relates to the state maintained institutions and aided educational institutions. Question whether the Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2005 would be constitutionally valid or not so far as “private unaided” educational institutions are concerned, is left open to be decided in an appropriate case.
2. “Creamy layer” principle is one of the parameters to identify backward classes. Therefore, principally, the “Creamy layer” principle cannot be applied to STs and SCs, as SCs and STs are separate classes by themselves.
3. Preferably there should be a review after ten years to take note of the change of circumstances.
4. A mere graduation (not technical graduation) or professional deemed to be educationally forward.
5. Principle of exclusion of Creamy layer applicable to OBC’s.
6. The Central Government shall examine as to the desirability of fixing a cut off marks in respect of the candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) to balance reservation with other societal interests and to maintain standards of excellence. This would ensure quality and merit would not suffer. If any seats remain vacant after adopting such norms they shall be filled up by candidates from general categories.
7. So far as determination of backward classes is concerned, a Notification should be issued by the Union of India, after exclusion of the creamy layer. Such Notification is open to challenge on the ground of wrongful exclusion or inclusion. There has to be proper identification of Other Backward Classes (OBCs.).
8. The Parliament should fix a deadline by which time free and compulsory education will have reached every child. This must be done within six months, as the right to free and compulsory education is perhaps the most important of all the fundamental rights (Art.21 A). For without education, it becomes extremely difficult to exercise other fundamental rights.
9. Held that the determination of SEBCs is done not solely based on caste and hence, the identification of SEBCs is not violative of Article 15(1) of the Constitution.

For the final position held by SC in India on reservation , click here