Court case(2006) 8 SCC 212

After Indra Sawhney barred reservation in promotion, Parliament inserted Article 16(4A) (77th Amendment 1995) enabling reservation in promotion for SCs and STs, Article 16(4B) (81st Amendment 2000) exempting carried-forward vacancies from the 50 per cent ceiling, a proviso to Article 335 (82nd Amendment 2000) allowing relaxation of qualifying marks, and, by the 85th Amendment 2001, 'consequential seniority' in Article 16(4A) with effect from 1995, nullifying the 'catch-up' rule of Virpal Singh and Ajit Singh. General category employees challenged these amendments as destroying the equality code.

Kapadia J upheld all four amendments. Applying the 'width' and 'identity' tests, the Court held that the amendments are enabling provisions that do not obliterate the constitutional requirements of the 50 per cent ceiling, the creamy layer, and the twin conditions of backwardness and inadequacy of representation, all of which are part of the equality code forming the basic structure. A State is not bound to make reservation in promotion; if it wishes to, it must collect quantifiable data showing the backwardness of the class, the inadequacy of its representation in public employment, and must ensure that overall administrative efficiency under Article 335 is not compromised. Reservation must not be excessive or extend indefinitely.