📰 Introduction
The Indra Sawhney & Others vs Union of India (1992) judgment — famously known as the Mandal Commission case — reshaped India’s reservation policy. The Supreme Court upheld 27% reservation for OBCs but imposed significant limitations, including the 50% ceiling rule and exclusion of the creamy layer.
Parliament, however, viewed some restrictions as obstacles to achieving social justice under the Constitution. In the following decade, it introduced a series of constitutional amendments (77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th) to expand the scope of affirmative action.
⚖️ Key Highlights of the Indra Sawhney Judgment
Case Name: Indra Sawhney & Others vs Union of India (1992)
Bench Strength: 9 Judges (Constitution Bench)
Citation: AIR 1993 SC 477
Major Rulings:
1. Reservation for OBCs upheld under Article 16(4).
2. Creamy layer exclusion introduced for OBCs.
3. Reservation cap of 50% established (except in extraordinary situations).
4. No reservation in promotions unless explicitly provided by the Constitution.
5. Economic criteria alone are not sufficient to define backwardness.
These restrictions led to a major constitutional and political response from the Indian Parliament.
🏛️ Why Parliament Intervened
After Indra Sawhney, the following challenges emerged:
Lack of representation of SCs and STs in higher services due to the ban on promotion-based reservations.
The 50% ceiling rule limited the flexibility of states to address backlog vacancies.
Administrative concerns over maintaining “efficiency of service” (Article 335) while implementing reservation policies.
To overcome these constraints, Parliament exercised its constituent power under Article 368 to insert new enabling provisions through amendments.
📜 Major Constitutional Amendments Post–Indra Sawhney
1️⃣ The 77th Amendment Act, 1995 — Reservation in Promotion
Inserted Article 16(4A).
Allowed the State to provide reservation in matters of promotion for SCs and STs if they were not adequately represented.
Reversed the Indra Sawhney ruling that barred promotion-based reservation.
Impact:
Restored the power of the State to provide promotions with reservation benefits for SC/ST employees.
2️⃣ The 81st Amendment Act, 2000 — Backlog Vacancies
Added Article 16(4B).
Allowed unfilled reserved vacancies (backlog) to be treated as a separate class and filled in subsequent years.
Such vacancies were excluded from the 50% ceiling for that recruitment year.
Impact:
Ensured that the 50% cap does not hinder filling long-pending reserved posts, promoting genuine representation.
3️⃣ The 82nd Amendment Act, 2000 — Relaxation in Evaluation Standards
Amended Article 335 by adding a proviso allowing relaxation in qualifying marks or standards for SC/ST candidates in promotion.
Balanced the twin goals of efficiency in administration and social justice.
Impact:
Enabled flexibility in service rules and ensured fair opportunity to disadvantaged groups in promotional assessments.
4️⃣ The 85th Amendment Act, 2001 — Consequential Seniority
Further amended Article 16(4A) to add the phrase “with consequential seniority.”
Ensured that SC/ST employees promoted through reservation retained their seniority.
Impact:
Protected career progression and parity in rank among reserved category officers.
Together, these amendments effectively neutralized the restrictive parts of the Indra Sawhney verdict, strengthening the reservation framework for SC/ST communities.
🧭 Later Judicial Developments
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006): Upheld the validity of these amendments but required states to collect quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequate representation before granting promotion-based reservation.
Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018): Reaffirmed Nagaraj but relaxed the need to prove “backwardness” for SC/STs, given their constitutional recognition.
Recent EWS Reservation (103rd Amendment, 2019): Added economic criteria to reservation policy, a departure from the Indra Sawhney position on economic backwardness.
📚 Relevance for UPSC Polity & Governance
Prelims: Questions on Articles 16(4A), 16(4B), 335 and related amendments.
Mains GS Paper-2: Questions on reservation policies, social justice, and constitutional interpretation.
Essay Paper: Topics like “Balancing equality with social justice in India’s reservation framework.”
🧩 Key Takeaways
The Indra Sawhney case created the constitutional blueprint for reservation.
Parliament used four constitutional amendments to restore flexibility in promotion and representation.
The balance between equality and social justice remains a dynamic, evolving constitutional theme.
These amendments reflect Parliament’s proactive role in shaping India’s social justice policy through constitutional tools.
🔗 Suggested External Links (for authority)
Text of the 77th Amendment – India Code
Indra Sawhney Judgment Summary – Supreme Court of India
🧠 Conclusion
The Parliament’s response to the Indra Sawhney case is a defining chapter in India’s constitutional journey toward social justice. By enacting the 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Amendments, the legislature reaffirmed its commitment to uplift historically marginalized communities and preserve equality of opportunity.
Yet, the delicate balance between merit and representation, efficiency and empowerment, continues to evolve — keeping the debate on reservation alive as one of the most crucial aspects of India’s democracy.
