Indra Sawhney v. Union of India

In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court explained that a “backward class” means a socially backward group, not merely a collection of economically poor individuals. Under Article 16(4), such a class may receive reservation in public employment when it is inadequately represented in the services under the State.

What makes a class backward?

The Court treated social backwardness as central to identifying a backward class under Article 16(4). The provision addresses disadvantages affecting a class of citizens, rather than individual hardship alone.

• Economic disadvantage alone cannot identify a backward class for reservation under Article 16(4), although economic circumstances may help assess backwardness.
• Unlike Article 15(4), Article 16(4) does not expressly require a class to be both socially and educationally backward. Educational disadvantage can nevertheless provide evidence of social backwardness.
• Backwardness and inadequate representation are distinct requirements: identifying a backward class does not by itself establish its entitlement to reservation in State services.

The relationship between caste and class

The Court rejected a rigid opposition between caste and class. In Indian social conditions, a caste can constitute a social class; therefore, caste may be used to identify backwardness without making caste the only permissible basis.

• A caste may be recognised as a backward class when its social backwardness is established; the caste label alone does not establish eligibility.
• Identification need not always begin with caste. Occupational groups and other social collectivities may also constitute backward classes.
• The category is not confined to Hindus. Backward classes can also be identified among non-Hindu communities by examining their social circumstances.

Keeping identification focused on genuine backwardness

The Court required exclusion of the creamy layer, meaning socially advanced sections within backward classes. This ensures that the reservation category does not continue to include those who have overcome the disadvantages that justify its recognition.

• Income, occupation and social position can help identify advanced sections, but creamy-layer exclusion is not simply a poverty test.
• The Court also permitted classification into backward and more backward classes, recognising that the degree of disadvantage need not be uniform.