Reservation — Landmark Supreme Court Cases
These are the actual Supreme Court judgments that have shaped India's reservation system, in chronological order, with what each one really held — not summaries recycled from search snippets.
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan
Struck down a Madras government order reserving seats in medical/engineering colleges by caste, holding it violated Article 15 (as it then stood). This directly led Parliament to pass the First Constitutional Amendment, inserting Article 15(4).
M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore
Struck down a Mysore government order reserving 68% of seats for backward classes, holding that reservation under Article 15(4) should generally not exceed 50% — an early statement of what later became the formal 50% ceiling.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (the "Mandal case")
A nine-judge bench upheld 27% reservation for OBCs based on the Mandal Commission's recommendations, formally capped total reservation at 50% (barring extraordinary circumstances), introduced the "creamy layer" exclusion for OBCs, and initially held that reservation could not extend to promotions.
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India
Upheld the constitutional validity of Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) (reservation in promotion for SC/ST), but required the State to demonstrate quantifiable data on backwardness, inadequate representation, and administrative efficiency before applying it in any specific case.
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India
Upheld 27% OBC reservation in central higher-education institutions under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, while confirming that the "creamy layer" among OBCs must be excluded.
Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta
Relaxed the M. Nagaraj requirement, holding that the State does not need to separately collect quantifiable data to prove the backwardness of SCs/STs (since they are already deemed backward), while retaining the requirement to show inadequate representation and maintain efficiency, and applying creamy-layer exclusion to promotions too.
Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra ("Maratha reservation case")
Struck down Maharashtra's law granting separate reservation to the Maratha community for breaching the 50% ceiling, and held that after the 102nd Amendment, only the Centre could identify socially and educationally backward classes — a reading that Parliament later reversed for states via the 105th Amendment.
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India ("EWS case")
By a 3:2 majority, a five-judge bench upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment and the 10% EWS reservation, holding that economic criteria alone can be a valid basis for reservation and that the 50% ceiling set in Indra Sawhney is not an inviolable rule for this separate EWS category. The bench was split on whether excluding existing SC/ST/OBC beneficiaries from the EWS quota was constitutional — the majority upheld the exclusion.
State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh
A seven-judge bench ruled 6:1 that states can sub-classify Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to give more targeted reservation to the most disadvantaged groups within those lists, overruling the 2004 judgment in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh which had treated SCs as one indivisible class.
Reservation Court Cases — Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Indra Sawhney case decide?
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), also called the Mandal case, upheld 27% reservation for OBCs, capped total reservation at 50% (with exceptions in extraordinary circumstances), introduced the 'creamy layer' exclusion for OBCs, and initially barred reservation in promotions.
What is the 50% reservation ceiling and where did it come from?
The 50% ceiling on total reservation was laid down by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992). It held for three decades until the 2022 Janhit Abhiyan judgment held that the ceiling is not an inviolable rule for the separate EWS quota.
What did the Supreme Court decide in the EWS reservation case?
In Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), a five-judge bench upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment by a 3:2 majority, validating the 10% EWS reservation and holding that economic criteria alone can be a valid basis for reservation.
What did the Maratha reservation case decide?
In Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2021), the Supreme Court struck down Maharashtra's law granting reservation to the Maratha community for exceeding the 50% ceiling, and held that only the Centre (not states) could identify socially and educationally backward classes under the post-102nd-Amendment framework — a ruling that later led to the 105th Constitutional Amendment.
Can states sub-classify SC and ST categories for reservation?
Yes. In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024), a seven-judge bench ruled 6:1 that states can sub-classify SCs and STs to give additional priority to the most disadvantaged groups within these categories, overruling the 2004 ruling in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh which had treated SCs as one homogeneous group.
What did M. Nagaraj v. Union of India decide?
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) upheld the constitutional validity of Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) (reservation in promotion) but required the State to show quantifiable data on backwardness, inadequate representation, and administrative efficiency before applying it.
