Reservation — Landmark Supreme Court Judgements
Reservation in India has been shaped as much by the Supreme Court as by Parliament. Below are the landmark judgments that define today's rules — the 50% ceiling, the creamy layer, promotion quotas, EWS, and sub-classification.
Landmark judgments, in order
Struck down a caste-based admission order
The Court held a Madras government order reserving college seats by caste violated Article 15(1). Parliament responded within months with the First Amendment, inserting Article 15(4).
First laid down the 50% ceiling
The Court held that reservation under Article 15(4) is an exception to the general rule of equality and should ordinarily not exceed 50%, calling a 68% quota in Mysore "a fraud on the Constitution."
The most important reservation judgment
A 9-judge bench upheld 27% OBC reservation, introduced the "creamy layer" exclusion, capped total reservation at 50% (barring extraordinary situations), and held reservation in promotions unconstitutional. Read the full case list →
Conditions for reservation in promotion
Upheld Parliament's power (via the 77th, 81st, 82nd and 85th Amendments) to provide reservation in promotion, but held the State must first demonstrate backwardness, inadequate representation, and administrative efficiency for each such decision.
Upheld 27% OBC quota in central institutions
Upheld the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, confirming 27% OBC reservation in IITs, IIMs and central universities, subject to creamy layer exclusion, but struck it down as applied to unaided private institutions.
Struck down Maharashtra's Maratha quota
Struck down a state law granting separate Maratha reservation for breaching the 50% ceiling without the "extraordinary circumstances" Indra Sawhney requires, reaffirming the ceiling still applies.
Upheld the 10% EWS quota — and the 50% ceiling was breached
A 5-judge bench upheld the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 by a 3-2 majority, holding that reservation based purely on economic criteria for the "general" category does not violate the basic structure — even though, combined with existing SC/ST/OBC quotas, it takes total reservation above 50% in most states.
Allowed sub-classification within SC/ST quotas
A 7-judge bench held that states can sub-classify Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to give more disadvantaged sub-groups a greater share of the existing quota, and that a "creamy layer"-style exclusion principle can, in future, be applied to SC/ST reservation too — overruling an earlier 2004 ruling that had barred sub-classification.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the single most important reservation judgment?
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) — it upheld 27% OBC reservation, introduced the creamy layer, capped total reservation at 50%, and barred reservation in promotions.
Did the Supreme Court uphold the 10% EWS quota?
Yes. In Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022), a 5-judge bench upheld the 103rd Amendment's EWS quota by a 3-2 majority.
Can states now sub-classify SC/ST reservation?
Yes. In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024), a 7-judge bench held states can sub-classify SCs and STs to prioritise more disadvantaged sub-groups within the existing quota.
Is the 50% reservation ceiling still legally valid?
In principle yes, but it has been breached in practice — the EWS quota alone adds 10% on top of existing SC/ST/OBC reservation in most states, and several states apply even higher totals.
Where can I read more reservation-related cases?
See our dedicated Supreme Court cases page for a longer, continuously updated list.
