India: Casteism Much? – An Analysis Of Indra Sawhney: Part I

Last Updated: 29 November 2017
Article by Aditya Mehta and Percival Billimoria

This is the third blog piece in our series entitled "Those Were the Days", which is published monthly.

This is a two-part piece which analyses the Indra Sawhney Case – a case that is famous for both settling several issues and unsettling several others in the great Indian backward-class-reservation jurisprudence. Published here is Part I of the piece, which examines the legal history of affirmative action in India.

We hope you enjoy reading this as much as we have enjoyed putting this together.

The "Mandal Commission Report" and the controversy that followed it, is etched in the memory of every Indian. By upholding the implementation of the Mandal Commission Report, the Apex Court judgment in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, established a central role for itself in every debate on the sensitive issue of reservations in India.

One of the avowed objectives of the Indian Constitution is the creation of an egalitarian society, including, and especially, by way of the eradication of caste and the caste system. In support of this objective, several successive governments have devised various affirmative action policies to eradicate caste and support the social mobility of backward classes. These measures typically include reserving seats in representative and educational institutions or public employment for members of certain classes that have been traditionally and historically marginalised. However, over time, these measures have become a tool for populism and to appease certain communities. Therefore, every time such a measure is introduced, it has resulted in dividing public opinion and caused widespread controversy. On some occasions, this divide has escalated into public demonstrations and even riots, for or against reservation.1

When these hotly contested measures have come up for adjudication, the judiciary's role has not been easy; it has to account for social realities, while simultaneously grounding its decision within the sacred framework of the Constitution. One recurrent controversy that has arisen on multiple occasions before the Apex Court is the criteria for determining backwardness in order to qualify for reservation. There have been several cases that directly deal with this question. Of these, the most significant is the 1992 decision of by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp. (3) SCC 217 2 (Indra Sawhney).

The Indra Sawhney case was decided by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in 1992. The case is famous for decisively laying down several landmark propositions such as 50% threshold in reservations, the bar against reservations in certain types of posts, the exclusion of 'creamy layer'3 etc.4. This piece is, however, limited to the debate on using caste as a factor in determining the backwardness of a group and how Indra Sawhney settled this debate to change the course of India's reservation jurisprudence and policy forever.

I. The Legal History of Affirmative Action in India

Prior to the First Amendment, Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution (as it was originally adopted) were examined by the Supreme Court in the context of reservations in the case of State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (Champakam).5 In this case, a government order (G.O.) apportioning seats between various castes according to their numerical strength for admission into Government medical and engineering colleges in a prescribed ratio, was struck down for being in violation of Article 15(1) of the Constitution. This G.O. relied solely on caste as an identifying factor (minus any other consideration of backwardness). The Court held that since the manifest operation of the policy indicated a clear delineation on the sole basis of caste, this was in violation of Article 15.

The decision in Champakam prompted the introduction of the First Amendment to the Constitution in June 1951. The Parliament inserted clause (4) in Article 15 along the lines of Article 16(4). Article 15(4) as it stands today reads as below:

"(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes."

Further to this amendment, in the year 1953, the President appointed the First Backward Classes Commission (popularly known as the 'Kaka Kalelkar Commission') under Article 340(1) of the Constitution, which inter alia, had the mandate of identifying methods of improving the condition of socially and educationally backward classes. In 1955, the Kaka Kalelkar Commission submitted its report wherein various factors were identified in classifying a class as backward. This included their: (i) traditional occupation or profession; (ii) percentage of literacy or general educational advancement; (iii) social position that a community occupies in the caste hierarchy; and (iv) representation in government service or in the industrial sphere. According to the Commission, the causes of educational backwardness could ultimately be traced to their social backwardness, which in turn was related to caste. Finally, the Commission decided to treat the status of caste as an important factor for this purpose, and on that basis proceeded to make a list of backward communities.6

Despite the strong recommendations in the Kaka Kalelkar Commission report, its shortcomings were evident to all. Three of the members of the Commission were opposed the acceptance of caste as a criterion for determining social backwardness. In fact, the Chairman of the Commission, Kaka Kalelkar, had second thoughts after signing the report. On the eve of submitting the report, Kaka Kalelkar in his covering letter disowned the report stating that the remedies suggested by the Commission were worse than the evil it sought to combat since it was once again premised on caste.7 He feared that the recommendations would only serve to increase caste consciousness, loyalties and aspirations in the country and would be unsuccessful in eschewing caste altogether.8 No meaningful action was taken pursuant to the Kaka Kalelkar Commission report, which was considered to be too vague and of little practical value.9

Finally, after almost a decade, in 1962, this issue of determining backwardness arose in the case of M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (Balaji) wherein the newly inserted Article 15(4) was examined by the Supreme Court.10 Under challenge here was a governmental order issued by the State of Mysore, wherein backward classes were identified exclusively on the basis of caste. The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court struck down this classification for several reasons – the chief of which is the Court's interpretation of the words in Article 15(4) as being "classes of citizens", not as "castes of citizens".11 The test of caste was rejected for some other reasons as well – first, caste is inapplicable in many sections of Indian society which do not recognise the caste system such as Muslims or Christians; and second, the use of caste may be inappropriate if the end-goal is to eradicate caste itself.

The Court in Balaji acknowledged that caste plays a role in the social superiority and inferiority of people; however, it cautioned against exaggerating the role of caste. Consequently, although caste may not be an entirely irrelevant consideration to determine whether a group is a backward class of citizens, caste cannot be the only criteria. The use of caste as the sole or even paramount consideration in determining backwardness became impermissible.

Balaji was followed in another case originating in the State of Mysore – R. Chitralekha & Anr v. State of Mysore & Ors.,12 (Chitralekha), which upheld an order of the government that defined "backwardness" without any reference to caste using other criteria such as occupation, income and other economic factors. The Court ruled that while caste may be relevant to determine backwardness, the mere exclusion of caste does not impair the classification if it satisfied other tests.13

However, the shift in the tide soon became apparent. In one case after another, the Supreme Court began permitting the use of caste as the chief or even sole criteria in determining backwardness. The first of such cases was C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India14 (Rajendran) – here, the Supreme Court upheld the identification of social and economic backwardness that exclusively had a list of castes, on the ground that the castes included therein were in fact wholly educationally and socially backward. Thus, without explicitly disagreeing with Balaji, Rajendran substantially watered it down to permit the use of caste as the sole indicator for classification of backwardness under Article 15.

Using Rajendran as the authority, several other cases such as A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.,15 and Triloki Nath v. J. & K. State,16 permitted the same. However, in the year 1974 a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court took a contrary view in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradip Tandon.17 The Court departed from Rajendran and forbade the use of caste altogether. It held that it is impermissible to use caste even as one of the factors in determining social and educational backwardness, as it would stultify Article 15(1).

The aforesaid judgments with contradictory approaches in identifying castes resulted in utter confusion as to whether caste could be used as a criterion at all, and if it could, to what extent it could be used to ascertain backwardness.

In Part II, we will examine in detail the Indra Sawhney judgment and whether it was successful in settling the issue of ascertainment of backwardness, in line with the constitutional vision and ethos. Do watch this space.

* The author was assisted by Manasa Sundarraman, Associate


1 See, Nidhi Seth, Maratha Group To Hold 'Biggest' Silent March In Mumbai To Press Reservation Demand, available at (Last accessed on August 8, 2017); Rally By Patel Community Seeking Reservation Turns Violent In Gujarat, Economic Times available at accessed on August 9, 2017).

2 Alternative citations include AIR 1993 SC 477. The references in this piece will use the citation used in the body, i.e., (1992) Supp. (3) SCC 217.

3 The exclusion of 'creamy layer' refers to the application of a 'means test' (imposition of an income limit). Therefore, persons who belong to an identified backward class may be excluded from reservation if their income is above the said limit.

4 As a cautionary note, it has to be pointed that that the judgment itself has no single majority opinion, and therefore, care must be taken in determining which propositions can be rooted to the judgment and are binding. See also, Gautam Bhatia, Reservations, Equality and the Constitution – IV: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India – Background and Preliminaries, Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy available at (Last accessed on August 9, 2017).

5 State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan, AIR 1951 SC 226.

6 Kaka Kalelkar, the Chairman of the Commission, in his covering letter to the President wrote "My eyes were however opened to the dangers of suggesting remedies on caste basis when I discovered that it is going to have a most unhealthy effect on the Muslim and Christian sections of the nation." He further stated, "if we eschew the principle of caste, it would be possible to help the extremely poor and deserving from all communities. Care, however, being taken to give preference to those who come from the traditionally neglected social classes."

7 H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, Volume 2, lviii (4th edn. 2008 reprint).

8 M. L. Mathur, Encyclopaedia of Backward Castes: Mandal, media and aftermath, 198.

9 DD Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India – Vol. 2, 1806

10 M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649.

11 ¶22, Balaji.

12 R. Chitralekha & Anr v. State of Mysore & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1823.

13 ¶23, Chitralekha.

14 C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 507.

15 A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 1971 SC 2303.

16 Triloki Nath v. J. & K. State, [1969 1 SCR 103.

17 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradip Tandon, AIR 1975 SC 563.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions