Understanding Reservation in India through Landmark Judgments

Reservation in India has long stood at the crossroads of social justice and political debate. Introduced to uplift historically marginalized communities, it has evolved into a complex system that sparks questions about equality, merit, and representation. This article explores the roots, realities, and reforms surrounding India’s reservation policy, what it set out to achieve, where it stands today, and what lies ahead.Reservation as a concept is very wide. Different people understand reservation to mean different things. One view of reservation as a generic concept is that reservation is an anti-poverty measure. There is a different view which says that reservation is merely providing a right of access and that it is not a right to redressal.¹

Reservation implies a separate quota which is reserved for a special category of persons². In India, reservation was introduced with the aim of advancement and adequate representation of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes or any other socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, or economically weaker sections.

Articles 15, 16, 17 and 46 of the Constitution of India provide for the establishment of a society without social injustice, exploitation and where there is equality, and no one is left behind.

The First Strike

The saga began with the landmark case of State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 SCC 351, wherein the Court set aside the Government order providing for caste-based reservation in medical and engineering colleges,, ruling it unconstitutional as it violated Article 29(2) of the Constitution This led to the First Constitutional Amendment, which introduced Article 15(4), a provision allowing the State to make special arrangements for backward classes.

Setting the Limit

In 1962, the State of Mysore reserved 68% of seats for various backward classes, which was challenged in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, 1963 Supp (1) SCR 439, wherein the Court held that the reservation should be below 50%.

Carry Forward Rule

Further, in T. Devadasan v. Union of India, (1964) 4 SCR 680 , it was held that the unfilled seats for reserved categories in a year cannot be carried forward to the next year.

Promotion and Rule of CautionIn 1975, development in reservation jurisprudence came with the case of State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC 310 .The case involved the issue of reservation in promotions within public employment. A five-judge bench initially heard the matter, during which two judges observed that the 50% ceiling on reservations was not an inviolable constitutional rule, but rather a rule of caution aimed at maintaining balance. Recognising the constitutional importance of the issue, the matter was referred to a larger bench

. Subsequently, a 7-Judge Bench upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 13AA of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 which empowers the State Government to exempt members of the SC’s and ST’s already in services from passing the test for a specified period.

The Mandal Era

In 1979, the Government set up the Mandal Commission’s (Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Commission) to identify the socially and educationally backward classes of India and to recommend reservation policy for them. Reservations under the Mandal Commission were challenged in Court, in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 , wherein a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld the 50% ceiling, denied reservations in promotions and laid down indicators to ascertain backwardness. Further, the Court overruled Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 246 , wherein it was held that reservations in appointments or posts under Article 16(4) included promotions.

Legislative Pushback: 77th & 81st Amendments

However, the Parliament through Constitution (Seventy —Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, and Constitution (Eighty-First Amendment) Act, 2000 inserted Articles 16(4-A) (Reservation in matters of promotion with consequential seniority) and 16 (4-B) (Carry forward rule) respectively. The above-mentioned amendments were held constitutional in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212

General Category Claims and Migration

In R. K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745, it was held that the reserved categories candidates appointed/promoted in non-reserved posts as a result of competition, cannot be considered to work out the prescribed percentage of reservation.Further, in Jitendra vs. State of M.P., the Court relied on the law laid down in R. K. Sabharwal (supra) and held that the reserved category candidates cannot be denied appointment against a general category post merely because of being reserved category candidate and are entitled to be considered against a general category post, given that they are eligible in all respects except for the caste.

Promotion and Seniority

In a case pertaining to promotion, it was held that accelerated promotion through reservation or roster system will not grant SC/ST promotees seniority over general category³. However, this was overruled in Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538, wherein the grievance of general category candidates was that the seniority of SC/ST candidates who were junior to the general category candidates, but were promoted earlier than them, should be downgraded when general category candidates were also promoted, as the Court held that SC/STs will get seniority with reference to the date of their promotion.

Reservation in Private Educational Institutions

Further,in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2008) 6 SCC 1 , which revolves around the validity of the Central Education Institution (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 and the Constitution (Ninety —Third Amendment) Act, 2005, wherein Clause (5) was incorporated in Article 15 which enables the reservation for socially and economically backward classes in private educational institutions. The 5-Judge Bench overruled General Manager, S. Rly. v. Rangachari, (1962) 2 SCR 586 , and held that Ninety-Third amendment to the Constitution does not violate the basic structure and there was no excessive delegation under Section 2 (g) of Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act. Further, it was held that the creamy layer has to be accounted for, while providing reservations to the OBC’s, but cannot be considered in the case of SC’s and ST’s.

Maratha Quota Struck Down

In Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 362 relating to Maharashtra State Reservation for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in the public services under the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (‘SEBC Act’) as amended in 2019, the 5-judge bench comprising of Ashok Bhushan, S.A. Nazeer, L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ quashed the Maratha Reservation and has held that the granting 12% and 13% reservation to Maratha Community in addition to 50% social reservation is not covered by exceptional circumstances as contemplated by the Constitution Bench in the Indra Sawhney case.

In 2019, Parliament passed the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act which does not mandate but enables 10% of reservations for economically weaker sections, in addition to the existing reservations.

EWS Reservation Upheld

The 5-judge Constitution bench of UU Lalit, CJ and Dinesh Maheshwari, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M Trivedi, JB Pardiwala, JJ. in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1540, has upheld the constitutional validity of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019.

Horizontal Reservation Clarified

In Ramnaresh v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2058, the Division Bench of B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ., considered instant the appeals revolving around non-allotment of MBBS Unreserved (UR) Category Government School (GS) quota seats to the meritorious reserved category candidates, who had passed from the Government Schools by the Department of Medical Education. The Court held that the methodology adopted by the respondents in compartmentalising the different categories in the horizontal reservation and restricting the migration of meritorious reserved category candidates to the unreserved seats was totally unsustainable. The Court held that meritorious candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC, who on their own merit, were entitled to be selected against the UR-GS quota, have been denied the seats against the open seats in the GS quota. Therefore, the appellants were deprived of their legitimate claim of admission against the UR-GS category in the Academic Session 2023-24.

Meritorious Reserved Candidates Entitled to General Category Seats

In a significant ruling in Deependra Yadav v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 724 ,concerning the Madhya Pradesh State Services Examination, the Supreme Court upheld a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court directing the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) to prepare a fresh list of selected candidates by normalising and merging the results of two separate main examinations.

This is an appeal against the Judgment of the division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, wherein the Court upheld the direction of the Single Judge that, based on the results of the two main examinations, a fresh list of selected candidates should be prepared in terms of the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 (‘Rules of 2015’) for the interview, by merging and normalizing the two lists, as per the process adopted by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commissions (‘MPPSC’) on previous occasions.

The division bench of C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. while upholding the impugned judgment, held that the process of normalization and the consequential merger of the marks secured by the candidates who appeared in the two main examinations cannot be found fault with. Thus, the meritorious candidates from reserved categories, who did not avail reservation benefits, should be treated as general-category candidates based on their marks.

Sub-Classification of SCs Upheld

In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, (2025) 1 SCC 1 , the seven Judge Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., by a majority of 6:1 held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes among reserved categories is permissible for granting separate quotas for more backwards within the SC categories and overruled the E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P., (2005) 1 SCC 394.

Also Read:

‘Indra Sawhney did not limit sub-classification to OBCs; Sub-classification of SC/STs permissible’: A point wise breakdown of Majority Ruling in SC’s 6:1 Verdict

However, Justice Bela M. Trivedi being the lone dissenter held that such sub-classifications within the SC/STs is impermissible, holding EV Chinnaiah to be a good law. It was held that when the law was settled by the Constitution Bench in E.V. Chinnaiah after considering all the previous judgments including Indra Sawhney (supra) and after investing substantial judicial time and resources, the same should not have been doubted and referred to the larger bench by the Three-Judge Bench in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2020) 8 SCC 65 and that too without assigning any reason much less cogent reason for their disagreement disregarding the well settled doctrines of Precedents and Stare decisis. Further, it was held by Justice Trivedi that the power conferred upon the Supreme Court under Article 142 cannot be used to supplant the substantive law applicable to the case under consideration. Even with the width of its amplitude, Article 142 cannot be used to build a new edifice where none existed earlier, by ignoring express statutory provisions dealing with the subject, and thereby to achieve something indirectly which cannot be achieved directly. The action of the State, though well intentioned and affirmative in nature, if violates the specific provision of the Constitution, cannot be validated by the Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142. The affirmative action and legal frameworks, though both do aim at more equitable society, they must navigate complex legal principles to ensure fairness and constitutionality.

Reserved Candidates in General Category

While considering the appeal in Union of India v. Sajib Roy, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943 challenging the impugned judgments whereby the respondents who had applied as reserved candidates in OBC category after having availed age relaxation for the post of Constable (GD) were directed to be considered for recruitment under unreserved category; the Division Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., held that where there is no embargo in the recruitment rules/employment notification, such reserved candidates who have scored higher than the last selected unreserved candidate shall be entitled to migrate and be recruited against unreserved seats. However, if an embargo is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such reserved candidates shall not be permitted to migrate to general category seats.

Conclusion

Reservation remains one of the most dynamic and contentious areas of Indian constitutional law. While courts have played a critical role in safeguarding equality, they’ve also made space for affirmative action tailored to contemporary social realities. As society evolves, so too must the legal interpretations that shape our pursuit of substantive equality.

FAQs on Recent Judgments on Reservation Policies in India

• What is the recent judgment of Supreme Court on reservation?

In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, (2025) 1 SCC 1 , the seven Judge Constitution Bench comprising of Dr. DY Chandrachud, CJI, B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M. Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., by a majority of 6:1 held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes among reserved categories is permissible for granting separate quotas for more backwards within the SC categories and overruled the E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P., (2005) 1 SCC 394.

• Which is the famous judgment on reservation?

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 , wherein a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld the 50% ceiling, denied reservations in promotions and laid down indicators to ascertain backwardness is the most well-known judgment on reservation.

• What is the current reservation policy in India?

Reservation to SCs, STs and OBCs in case of direct recruitment on all India basis by open competition is given at the rate of 15%, 7.5% and 27% respectively. Otherwise, than by open competition reservation for SCs, STs and OBC is 16.66%, 7.5%, and 25.84% respectively. Reservation in promotion by non-selection method is available to SCs and the STs in all groups of services.⁴