After which Supreme Court Judgement, 27% reservation in Government services for other Backward Classes became valid?

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct option is 4:

The correct option is 4: **Indira Sawhney**.

The question addresses one of the most landmark judicial decisions concerning reservation policy in India: the **Indira Sawhney and Others v. Union of India** case, popularly known as the **Mandal Commission case**. This judgment, delivered by the Supreme Court of India in 1992 (though sometimes referenced as 1993, the landmark judgment date is 16th November 1992), specifically adjudicated the legality of the V.P. Singh government's 1990 decision to implement the recommendations of the Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission). The Mandal Commission recommended 27% reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs), or Other Backward Classes (OBCs), in central government services and public sector undertakings, in addition to the existing 22.5% reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).

The Supreme Court, by a 6:3 majority, largely upheld the validity of the 27% reservation for OBCs under Article 16(4) of the Constitution, affirming the government's power to provide such quotas. However, the Court simultaneously imposed several crucial caveats to maintain the balance of equality and efficiency. Crucially, it introduced the 'creamy layer' exclusion, stating that the economically and socially advanced members among the OBCs must be excluded from availing the reservation benefits. Furthermore, the judgment established a crucial principle: the total reservation quota should not exceed 50% of the seats (the ceiling rule), except in extraordinary circumstances. The Indira Sawhney judgment thus provided the constitutional validity and the necessary framework for the implementation of the 27% OBC quota in government services.

The incorrect option is 1: **Waman Rao**.

The **Waman Rao v. Union of India** case (1981) deals primarily with the protection of land reform laws placed under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution from judicial review. This judgment is significant for clarifying the application of the Basic Structure doctrine, especially determining the 'date of impact' for this doctrine on Constitutional Amendments, setting the date as April 24, 1973 (the date of the *Kesavananda Bharati* judgment). It is related to fundamental rights and constitutional amendments, but not directly to the validity of the 27% reservation for OBCs, making it irrelevant to the specific issue raised by the question.

The incorrect option is 2: **M. C. Mehta**.

The Supreme Court has delivered numerous judgments under the name **M. C. Mehta**, as he was a noted environmental activist who filed several public interest litigations (PILs). These cases are central to environmental jurisprudence in India, addressing issues such as the oleum gas leak case, pollution in the Ganga river, and regulating industries in the Taj Trapezium Zone. While highly significant in establishing principles of absolute liability and environmental protection, none of the M. C. Mehta judgments relate to the constitutional validity or implementation of the 27% reservation for OBCs in government services.

The incorrect option is 3: **S. R. Bommai**.

The **S. R. Bommai v. Union of India** case (1994) is a landmark judgment in Indian Constitutional Law that deals extensively with the principles of federalism and the misuse of Article 356 (President's Rule) by the Central government to dismiss state governments. The judgment significantly curtailed the arbitrary exercise of power under Article 356 and established that the power of the President to dismiss a State government is not absolute. Although it is a foundational case concerning Centre-State relations and the separation of powers, it has no connection to the issue of caste-based reservation policies for Other Backward Classes.