Indra Sawhney v. Union of India — 1992
Primary source: Supreme Court of India
60-SECOND SUMMARY
What is this record?
On 16 November 1992, a nine-judge Constitution Bench decided Indra Sawhney. Relevant holdings include creamy-layer exclusion in the OBC context, an ordinary 50% ceiling principle, and Article 16(4) applying to initial appointment rather than promotion.
- Nine-judge Constitution Bench
- Creamy layer in the OBC context
- Ordinary 50% ceiling principle
- Article 16(4) and initial appointment
RECORD PREVIEW
The source at a glance
Official source linked; no source document is reproduced.
THE DOCUMENT
What This Record Actually Says
- The nine-judge Constitution Bench decided the case on 16 November 1992.
- The judgment addressed creamy-layer exclusion for OBC reservation and stated an ordinary 50% ceiling principle.
- In the relevant holding, Article 16(4) concerned reservation at initial appointment rather than promotion.
CONTEXT
Why It Matters
- The decision shaped the revised OBC implementation framework and prompted a later constitutional response on reservation in promotion through the 77th Amendment, 1995.
READ WITH CARE
What It Does NOT Say
- The 50% principle is not accurately described as an absolute universal rule without qualifications.
- The OBC creamy-layer holding should not be casually generalized to every reservation category.
SOURCE CONNECTIONS
Follow the Record
- policy is challenged in the case 13 August 1990 Office Memorandum
- judgment leads to revised implementation 1993 revised implementation framework CONTEXT NODE
- promotion holding receives a constitutional response 77th Amendment, 1995 / Article 16(4A) CONTEXT NODE
Constitutional response concerning reservation in promotion.
Each connection is rendered from the archive’s typed canonical relationship data. A chronological connection does not by itself claim legal causation.
BEFORE
What Came Before
NEXT
What Happened Next
1993 revised implementation framework context node
77th Amendment, 1995 / Article 16(4A) context node
CONNECTED EVIDENCE
Connected Records
INQUIRY
Questions Worth Asking
- How did later legislation and constitutional amendments respond to distinct parts of the judgment?
COMMON CONFUSIONS
Keep Separate
- Creamy layer, the ceiling principle and promotion are separate holdings that require their own legal context.
EDITORIAL LAYER
Editor's Reading Note
Editorial reading note in preparation.
Reading note in preparationSOURCE & PROVENANCE
View the Original Record
Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India & Others
Supreme Court of India
official Supreme Court leading-case record
Source problem or correction? Tell the editor.