The Supreme Court invalidated the Madras "Communal G.O." that allocated educational seats by caste/community, holding it violated constitutional equality and non-discrimination guarantees (notably Article 29(2)). The decision triggered a constitutional response enabling special provisions for backward classes via amendment.
The Supreme Court invalidated Mysore’s order reserving 68% of seats in certain professional colleges (including separate quotas within "backward" groupings). The Court treated reservation as needing to remain within reasonable bounds, articulating a general caution that reservation should ordinarily stay below 50%.
The Supreme Court held that the Government of India’s "carry forward" rule (as applied) could produce excessive reservation (illustrated as very high percentages in some years), and struck down the rule in the form challenged for undermining Article 16(1)’s equality of opportunity.
The Supreme Court clarified that caste may be a relevant circumstance in identifying backwardness under Article 15(4), but it cannot be the sole or dominant test; backwardness may be assessed using other relevant criteria as well.
In a major Article 16 dispute, the Supreme Court upheld Kerala’s use of service-rule relaxations (including for promotion/confirmation) for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, with opinions emphasizing substantive equality and the constitutional space for affirmative measures within the equality code.
The Supreme Court decided service-related challenges brought by a railway employees’ association, addressing the constitutionality of reservation-related measures in public employment and reinforcing judicial acceptance of affirmative action in service matters within constitutional limits.
A nine-judge bench upheld the validity of 27% reservation for OBCs in central services under Article 16(4), while laying down major limits/structures: a 50% ceiling (ordinarily), exclusion of the “creamy layer” for OBCs, and restrictions on certain forms of reservation (notably distinguishing initial recruitment from promotions in its reasoning).
The Supreme Court held that reservation rosters operate with reference to posts (not vacancies) and that once the prescribed percentage of reserved posts in a cadre is filled, further appointments/promotions should be treated as unreserved until the reserved share falls below the quota. This became foundational for roster administration in services.
The Supreme Court struck down Andhra Pradesh’s attempt to create internal groups within Scheduled Castes for distributing reservation benefits, holding that states cannot re-classify or “sub-divide” Scheduled Castes as listed in the Presidential Order for reservation purposes.
The Supreme Court upheld constitutional amendments enabling reservation in promotion (including consequential seniority and backlog-carrying provisions), but treated their use as enabling and conditioned state action on showing compelling reasons—commonly summarized as requiring quantifiable data on inadequate representation and consideration of administrative efficiency (Article 335) when implementing promotion reservations.
The Supreme Court upheld the statutory/constitutional framework for 27% OBC reservation in centrally funded educational institutions (under the 93rd Amendment and implementing law), and reaffirmed that the creamy layer must be excluded when identifying eligible OBC beneficiaries.
Applying Nagaraj’s requirements, the Supreme Court invalidated Karnataka’s then-existing framework granting consequential seniority tied to reservation in promotions, on the basis that the state had not adequately demonstrated the required "compelling reasons"/measures supporting such action under Article 16(4A) read with Article 335.
A five-judge bench removed Nagaraj’s requirement that states collect quantifiable data to prove backwardness of SCs/STs for promotion reservations (treating SC/ST backwardness as constitutionally presumed), while maintaining the broader framework on inadequate representation and also addressing "creamy layer" exclusion in promotion-reservation discourse.
The Supreme Court upheld Karnataka’s 2018 law granting consequential seniority for SC/ST promotions, accepting the state’s revised empirical and administrative justification (including assessment of representation levels) as meeting the governing constitutional requirements for reservation in promotion.
A 5-judge bench (3:2) upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment providing up to 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in education and public employment, including the amendment’s design choices in relation to existing SC/ST/OBC reservation categories.
Judicial cases on caste and reservation in the Indian Supreme Court (1950–present)
