Court case1992 Supp (3) SCC 217

The Second Backward Classes Commission chaired by B.P. Mandal reported in 1980 that 52 per cent of the population belonged to socially and educationally backward classes and recommended 27 per cent reservation for them in central services. In August 1990 the V.P. Singh Government issued an Office Memorandum implementing the recommendation; a second O.M. of September 1991 added a preference for the poorer among the backward classes and 10 per cent for economically weaker sections of other classes. The memoranda were challenged in a wave of petitions amid nationwide agitation.

By six to three the 27 per cent OBC reservation was upheld. The majority held: (1) a backward class may be identified with reference to caste, provided caste is not the sole criterion and the class is socially backward; (2) Article 16(4) is not an exception to but a facet of Article 16(1); (3) reservation should not exceed 50 per cent save in extraordinary situations, and the carry-forward rule is subject to that ceiling in any year; (4) the socially advanced 'creamy layer' must be excluded from the backward class; (5) Article 16(4) permits reservation at the stage of initial appointment only, not in promotion, existing promotion quotas to continue for five years; (6) backwardness cannot be determined on economic criteria alone, so the 10 per cent for economically weaker sections was struck down; (7) a permanent body should examine complaints of over- and under-inclusion. Dissenting judges doubted caste-based identification.