The Unfinished Revolution: How India’s Supreme Court is Reshaping Reservation for a New Era 

India’s reservation system, a cornerstone of the nation’s quest for social justice, has been dynamically shaped by a series of landmark Supreme Court judgments that have continually refined its scope and application. Beginning with the foundational Champakam Dorairajan case, which prompted the First Constitutional Amendment to explicitly allow for affirmative action, the judiciary has established critical guardrails, most notably the 50% ceiling and the “creamy layer” principle through the Indra Sawhney (Mandal) verdict.

The Court has since navigated complex issues, from upholding legislative amendments for reservations in promotions to clarifying that meritorious reserved-category candidates can secure general seats, and it has recently ushered in a transformative era by permitting the sub-classification of Scheduled Castes in Davinder Singh to ensure benefits reach the most backward, all while upholding the introduction of economic criteria, demonstrating an ongoing evolution to balance substantive equality with constitutional integrity in a changing society.

The Unfinished Revolution: How India’s Supreme Court is Reshaping Reservation for a New Era 

Reservation in India is more than a policy; it is a profound constitutional promise, a turbulent political battlefield, and a living, breathing legal doctrine. It sits at the heart of a national conversation about justice, merit, and the very meaning of equality. From its inception as a shield for the historically oppressed, it has evolved into a complex, multi-layered system, continually tested and redefined by the judiciary. The story of reservation is not written in statute alone, but in the landmark judgments of the Supreme Court that act as both a compass and a brake, guiding the nation’s quest for substantive equality. 

This deep dive explores the seismic shifts in reservation jurisprudence, tracing its journey from a simple tool of redressal to a sophisticated instrument of social engineering, and examines what the future holds. 

The Foundational Fault Line: Champakam Dorairajan and the First Amendment 

The saga began not with a grand plan, but with a legal challenge. In 1951, in State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan, the Supreme Court struck down a caste-based reservation system in professional colleges. The Court held that such a policy violated Article 29(2), which prohibits discrimination in educational institutions based solely on religion, race, caste, or language. 

This judgment sent shockwaves through the nascent republic. It revealed a critical tension: the Constitution’s guarantee of non-discrimination (a right to something) was clashing with the state’s duty to uplift backward classes (a right against something). The government’s response was swift and historic—the First Constitutional Amendment. It introduced Article 15(4), empowering the State to make “special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens.” This was the moment reservation was constitutionally cemented, not as an exception, but as a core feature of the equality code. 

Establishing the Guardrails: The 50% Ceiling and the “Creamy Layer” 

With the power to reserve established, the next question was: how much? In M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963), the Court confronted a massive 68% reservation. It ruled that while caste could be a relevant factor, it couldn’t be the sole criterion for identifying backwardness. More importantly, it introduced the concept of a reasonable limit, suggesting that reservation should be well below 50% to maintain balance. This was not a rigid cap yet, but a “rule of caution.” 

The concept of balancing efficiency with equity was further tested. In T. Devadasan v. Union of India (1964), the Court struck down the “carry forward” rule, fearing it would lead to a “monopoly” over time. However, the judiciary also showed its progressive side in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976), upholding the state’s power to provide temporary exemptions to SC/ST employees, recognizing that formal equality was not enough to overcome centuries of disadvantage. 

The most definitive chapter in this era was written by the Mandal Commission case, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992). A nine-judge bench delivered a monumental verdict that still forms the bedrock of reservation law: 

• The 50% Ceiling: It crystallized the 50% limit as a binding rule, barring extraordinary circumstances. 

• No Reservation in Promotions: It ruled that Article 16(4) did not permit reservation in promotions. 

• The “Creamy Layer” Concept: It mandated the exclusion of the affluent (“creamy layer”) from Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservations to ensure benefits percolated to the truly backward. 

• Backwardness is Social, Not Economic: It affirmed that backwardness was primarily social and educational, not purely economic. 

The Legislative Counter-Punch and Judicial Scrutiny 

The political establishment responded to Indra Sawhney with constitutional amendments. The 77th and 81st Amendments reintroduced reservation in promotions for SCs/STs and the carry-forward rule, effectively nullifying parts of the judgment. The judiciary, in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006), upheld these amendments but imposed a crucial check: the state had to demonstrate “compelling reasons”—backed by quantifiable data—showing the backwardness and inadequate representation of these groups before implementing such policies. This established the “triple test,” ensuring that affirmative action remained evidence-based. 

The Modern Conundrums: Merit, Migration, and Sub-Classification 

The 21st century has seen the Court grapple with more nuanced questions, refining the mechanics of reservation. 

1. The “Meritorious Reserved” Candidate: A series of judgments, including R. K. Sabharwal (1995), Jitendra Kumar Singh (2021), and the recent Deependra Yadav v. State of M.P. (2024), have clarified a critical principle: a candidate from a reserved category who competes and secures a position on pure merit, without availing of reservation benefits, must be considered a general category candidate. This prevents the “double benefit” argument and acknowledges individual merit within the framework of group rights.
2. Horizontal vs. Vertical Reservations: The Ramnaresh v. State of M.P. (2024) judgment provided much-needed clarity on horizontal reservations (for women, ex-servicemen, etc., within the vertical categories of SC/ST/OBC/General). The Court held that meritorious reserved-category candidates who qualify for a horizontal quota (like a government school quota) cannot be restricted from migrating to the general seats within that horizontal quota. This ensures that their merit is not penalized by their caste category.
3. The Sub-Classification Earthquake: Davinder Singh (2025) Perhaps the most significant recent judgment is State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh. A seven-judge Constitution Bench, in a 6:1 majority, overruled its 2005 precedent in E.V. Chinnaiah and held that states have the power to sub-classify Scheduled Castes to provide separate quotas for the most backward and marginalized communities within the SC list.

• The Majority View: Led by the CJI, the Court reasoned that a monolithic SC list perpetuates inequality, as the most marginalized groups within SCs are often left behind by relatively advanced groups. This judgment acknowledges the “graded inequality” within these communities, allowing for more targeted and effective affirmative action. 

• The Dissent: Justice Bela Trivedi’s lone dissent was a powerful reminder of judicial restraint. She argued that sub-classification is a legislative function and that the Court, by overruling a settled precedent, was venturing into the domain of the legislature. She emphasized that the power under Article 142 cannot be used to rewrite constitutional schemes. 

This verdict opens a new frontier in social justice, empowering states to create a more equitable distribution of reservation benefits, but it also sets the stage for complex political and legal battles over the identification of these sub-groups. 

The Economic Turn and the Future 

The 103rd Constitutional Amendment, introducing a 10% quota for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) from the general category, marked a paradigm shift by introducing purely economic criteria into the reservation matrix. Its validation by the Supreme Court in Janhit Abhiyan (2022) signifies a broadening of the reservation discourse beyond caste, raising fundamental questions about its ultimate purpose. 

Conclusion: A Living, Breathing Doctrine 

The journey of reservation jurisprudence is a testament to the Indian Constitution as a living document. The Supreme Court has not been a mere interpreter but an active participant in shaping this policy. It has laid down guardrails (the 50% limit, creamy layer), corrected course (sub-classification), and constantly balanced the interests of the community with the rights of the individual. 

The core debate endures: Is reservation a poverty-alleviation tool, a right to access, or a form of reparative justice? The courts have increasingly leaned towards the latter, emphasizing that its goal is representation and the destruction of historical social barriers. As India changes, so will the demands on this system. The future will likely see more litigation around the EWS quota, the implementation of sub-classification, and the perennial question of the 50% ceiling. The revolution is unfinished, and the Supreme Court’s chamber remains its most crucial arena.