Indra Sawhney v. Union of India

The Court did not give definite interpretation to the term ‘backward class’ and directed the

Government to come out with a definition to this regard. Thus the main issue stills remains

undecided as to for whom the protection has been granted under Article 16(4) and who all can

avail the same.

 This arduous exercise by the Court to give a definite standpoint to the interpretation of Article 16

went in vain as it did not seek to resolve the conflict of reservation and also because majority of

the propositions settled in the decision have been either overruled in later judgments or set aside

by legislative amendments.

The Apex Court held as follows;

 The word ‘provision for the reservation’ in Article 16(4) refers to the provision to be made by the

executive wing of the state and not the legislature. Therefore the executive is competent to

provide for any determination of backwardness.

 The executive orders made by the government made in terms of Article 16(4) are enforceable

forthwith without there being a need for a law by the Parliament on it.

 Article 16(4) is not an exception to but an explanation and facet of Article 16(1).

 Article 16(4) is exhaustive of the concept of reservation for the backward classes but is not

exhaustive of the concept of reservation itself under the constitutional precincts.

 The interpretation that Article 16(1) does not permit reservation is erroneous.

 That neither the Constitution prescribed nor was it is possible for the court to lay down any

procedure for the determination of ‘backward class.’ It is better left to the authority appointed to

identify, which could adopt such method or procedure as it thought convenient and so long as it

covered the entire populace, no objection could be taken to it.

 The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were covered within the ambit of the term ‘backward

classes’ while other socially and economically backward classes were also covered.

 Economic criterion could not be the only criterion for the determination of ‘Backward class’.

 There could not be any further categorization in the backward class so identified.

 The reservation provided under Article 16(4) should not exceed 50% of the total posts.

 The carry forward rule (for unfilled vacancies) was not subject to the 50% limit.

 Article 16(4) does not permit rule of reservation even in promotion.