The document summarizes key cases related to reservations for backward classes in India under Article 16(4) of the constitution. It discusses the Devadsan, Thomas, A.B.S.K Sangh, and Indira Sawhney cases. The Indira Sawhney case, also known as the Mandal Commission case, dealt with the recommendation to reserve 27% of government jobs for Other Backward Classes. The Supreme Court ruled that reservations should not exceed 50% and the "creamy layer" of backward classes should be excluded. It also ruled that reservations should not be provided in promotions.

1. Article 16(4)

2. Article 16(4)
• Nothing in this article shall prevent the State/
from making any provision/ for the
reservation of appointments or posts/ in
favour of any backward class of citizens/
which, in the opinion of the state/ is not
adequately represented in the services under
the state.

3. Devadsan v. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 649
• Court was required to adjudge the validity of the ‘Carry
forward’ Rule.
• The ‘Carry Forward’ rule envisaged that in a year, 17.5
percentage posts were to be reserved for schedule
Castes/Tribes; of all the reserved posts were not filled in a year
for want of suitable candidates from those classes, then the
shortfall was to be carried forward to the next year and added
to the reserved quota for that year, and this could be done for
the next two years.
• The result of the rule was that in a year out of 45 vacancies in
the cadre of section officers, 29 went to the reserved quota &
only 16 posts were left for others.
• This meant reservation up to 65% in the third year, & while
candidates with low marks from the S.C & S.T were appointed,
Candidates with higher marks from other were not taken.

4. Devadsan v. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 649
• Supreme Court held-
• More than 50% reservation of posts in a single year would
be unconstitutional as it per se destroys Article 16(1).
• In the name of advancement of Backward Communities,
the F.Rs of other Communities should not be completely
annihilated.
• Article 16(4) is an exception to Article 16(1).
• Article 16(4) should not be interpreted so as to nullify or
destroy the main provision.
• Reservation for backward communities should not be so
excessive as to create a monopoly or to disturb unduly the
legitimate claims of other communities.
• State cannot ignore the F.Rs of the rest of the Citizens.

5. State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490
• Facts
• Promotion from the cadre of lower division clerks to the
higher cadre of upper division clerks depended on passing a
test within two years.
• For S.C & S.T extension could be granted for a longer
period.
• These classes were given two extra years to pass the test.
• This exemption was challenged as discriminatory under
Article 16(1).
• The ground of challenge was that
– Article 16 permitted only reservation in favour of
backward classes but it was not a case of reservation of
posts for S.C & S.T under Article 16(4) & that these
persons were not entitled to any favoured treatment in
promotion outside Article 16(4).

6. State of Kerala v. N.M Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490
• The majority accepted the view of Subba Rao,J. (Dissenting
opinion in Devadasan).
• Article 16(4) is not in the nature of an exception to Article
16(1).
• “It is a facet of Article 16(1) which fosters & further the idea
of equality of opportunity with special reference to an under
privileged & deprived class of citizens.”
• Article 16(1) itself permits reasonable classification for
attaining equality of opportunity assured by it.
• Article 16(4) should be read along, and in harmony with
article 16(1).
• Indeed even without Article 16(4), the State could have
reserved posts for backward classes.
• Article 16(4) merely puts the matter beyond any doubt or
controversy in specific terms.

7. A.B.S.K Sangh (Rly) v. Union of India AIR
1981 SC 298
• S.C reiterated the Thomas proposition that under Article
16(1) itself, the State may classify, “based upon substantial
differentia, groups or classes” for recruitment to public
services, and “this process does not necessarily spell
violation of Article 14 & 16.
• Article 16(2) expressly forbids discrimination on the basis of
‘caste’. S.Cs & S.Ts are not castes within the ordinary
meaning of caste. These are backward human groups.
• The “carry forward” rule for three years was not held bad.

8. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993
SC 477

9. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477
• Also known as Mandal Commission Case.
• On January1, 1979 under the Chairman ship of B.P.Mandal, the
second Backward Class Commission under Article 340 was
appointed by the Union Government headed by Prime Minister
Morarji Desai.
• One of the major recommendation made by the commission
was that, besides the SCs and STs, for other backward classes
which constitute nearly 52% component of the population, 27%
government jobs be reserved so that that total reservation for
all, SC,ST and OBCs, amount to 50%.
• No action was taken on the basis of the Mandal Report for
long after it was submitted, except that it was discussed in the
Houses of Parliament twice, once in 1982and again in 1983.
• On August 13, 1990, the V.P.Singh Government at the Centre
issued an office memorandum accepting the Mandal
Commission recommendation and announcing 27%
reservation for the socially and educationally backward classes
in vacancies in civil posts and services under the Government
of India.

10. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477
• This memorandum led to widespread disturbances in the country.
• The order was challenged in the Supreme Court.
• A three judge bench refused to interfere on the ground that the
matter was a political one.
• Public controversy and disturbances continued.
• The Supreme Court Bar Association moved a petition.
• In response Supreme Court constituted a 5 Judge Bench.
• The early order of the Supreme Court and the O.M were stayed.
• In the meanwhile the Government changed after General Elections.
• In 1991, the Narsimha Rao Government modified the above
memorandum in two respects:
• One, the poorer sections among the backward classes would get
preference over the other sections;
• Two, 10% vacancies would be reserved for other “economically
backward sections” of the people who were not covered by any
existing reservation scheme.

11. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477
• The reservations contemplated in clause (4) of Art.16 should
not exceed 50%.
– Overruled: State of Kerala v. N.M.Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490
K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka
– Approved: Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649
Devadsan v. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 649
• Creamy layer must be excluded from backward classes.
• No reservation in promotions.
• Reservation of appointments or posts under Art.16(4) is
confined to initial appointment only and cannot extend to
providing reservation in the matter of promotion.
• Overruled:
– General Manager, Southern Rly. V. Rangachari AIR 1962 S.C 36
– State of Punjab v. Hira Lal (1970) 3SCC 567
– A.B.S.K Sangh (Rly.) v. U.O.I AIR 1981 SC 298
– Com. & Aud. General of India,Gian Prakash v.
K.S.Jagannathan (1996) 2 SCC 679

12. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477
• Reservation can be made by ‘Executive Order’.
• A 'provision' under Art.16(4) can be made by an executive
order. It is not necessary that it should be made by
Parliament/Legislature.
• Carry Forward rule is valid.
– Overruled: Devadsan v. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 649
– Approved: A.B.S.K Sangh (Rly) v. U.O.I AIR 1981 SC 298
• Article 16(1) permits classification
• Approved: State of Kerala v. N.M.Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490
• Reservations can also be provided under clause (1) of Art.16.
• Article 16(1) permits classification & under it special
provisions can be made for handicapped or disadvantaged
groups other than the backward classes.

13. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477
• Clause (4) of Art.16 is not an exception to clause (1). It is an
instance and an illustration of the classification inherent in
clause (1).
• Overruled: Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649
• Approved: State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490
• The expression 'backward class' in Art.16 (4) takes in 'Other
Backward Classes', SCs, STs and may be some other
backward classes as well.
• Economic criterion cannot be the sole basis for determining
the backward class of citizens contemplated by Art.16(4).
• Even under Art.16(1), reservations cannot be made on the
basis of economic criteria alone.
• Backward Classes in Article 16(4) are not similar to as
socially and educationally backward in Article 15(4).
– Overruled: Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649

14. Indira Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477
• Article 16(4) permits classification of backward classes into
backward & more backward classes.
– Overruled: Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649
– Approved: State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490
• The government of India, each of the State governments and the
Administrations of Union Territories shall, within four months
from today, constitute a permanent body for entertaining,
examining and recommending upon requests for inclusion and
complaints of over inclusion and under -inclusion in the lists of
other backward classes of citizens.

15. Constitutional Developments after Indira
Sawhney Case
• No reservation in promotions.
• Overruled:
– General Manager, Southern Rly. V. Rangachari AIR 1962 S.C 36
– State of Punjab v. Hira Lal (1970) 3SCC 567
– A.B.S.K Sangh (Rly.) v. U.O.I AIR 1981 SC 298
– Com. & Aud. General of India, Gian Prakash v.
K.S.Jagannathan (1996) 2 SCC 679
Clause 4A was amended by 85th Amendment Act 2001.