Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) – The Mandal Commission & Reservation in India

The decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India remains one of the most significant constitutional pronouncements on the principle of reservation in India. Popularly known as the “Mandal Commission Case,” it addressed the question of whether the implementation of reservations for socially and educationally backward classes in government jobs was consistent with the Constitution. The case reached the Supreme Court after widespread protests following the Central Government’s decision in 1990 to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission, which called for 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

The Court upheld the validity of OBC reservations but introduced important constitutional limits. It ruled that total reservations could not exceed 50% except in extraordinary circumstances. The Court also excluded the “creamy layer” of OBCs from availing benefits, ensuring that affirmative action reaches only the truly disadvantaged. In doing so, the Court struck a delicate balance between the constitutional promise of equality and the need for social justice to uplift marginalized communities.

This judgment reshaped India’s social and political framework. Reservation policies became more structured, while the idea of “creamy layer” exclusions shaped future debates. Politically, the case remains one of the most debated in India’s history, influencing electoral strategies, governance, and social discourse for decades.

At Mullick & Co. Advocates, we view the Indra Sawhney judgment as an example of judicial pragmatism. It shows how the Supreme Court sought to balance principles of equality with the constitutional mandate of social justice. Our firm believes that as India progresses, the law must continuously adapt to strike a fair balance between inclusion and merit, ensuring both equity and efficiency in governance.