The Constitutional Justification of Reservation Policies in India under Article 14

I. Introduction: Reservation Policies and the Equality Code

Reservation policies in India represent a significant and complex facet of the nation’s constitutional and social landscape. Conceived as a form of affirmative action, these policies aim to address and rectify the deep-seated historical and ongoing social, educational, and economic disadvantages faced by specific communities, notably the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and more recently, the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). The necessity for such measures stems from a societal context marked by profound inequalities, particularly the enduring legacy of the caste system which historically dictated social status, occupation, and access to opportunities, leading to systemic discrimination and exclusion for vast sections of the population.¹

At the heart of the constitutional discourse surrounding reservations lies an apparent tension. On one hand, Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to equality, encompassing both ‘equality before the law’ and ‘equal protection of the laws’ for all persons within India’s territory.² On the other hand, Articles 15 and 16 contain specific provisions that explicitly empower the State to make special provisions, including reservations, for the advancement and adequate representation of certain designated groups.¹ This necessitates a careful balancing act, reconciling the universal guarantee of equality with the targeted measures designed to achieve social justice and fairness for historically marginalized communities.⁸

The constitutional justification for reservation policies, therefore, hinges critically on an interpretation of Article 14 that extends beyond mere formal equality – the notion of treating everyone identically regardless of their circumstances. Instead, it embraces the concept of substantive equality, recognizing that true equality in a society plagued by historical disadvantage requires differential treatment to level the playing field.⁸ The specific enabling clauses within Articles 15 and 16 are thus viewed not as contradictions to Article 14, but as constitutionally sanctioned mechanisms designed to achieve the broader, substantive vision of equality inherent within it. The evolution of jurisprudence in this area reflects a continuous judicial and legislative effort to navigate the complexities involved, balancing the competing demands of individual rights, group representation, the pursuit of social justice, and the maintenance of administrative efficiency.

This report aims to provide an expert analysis of how Indian constitutional law, shaped significantly by judicial interpretation, justifies reservation policies within the framework of Article 14. It will delve into the intricate relationship between Articles 14, 15, and 16, explore the distinction between formal and substantive equality, examine the application of the Reasonable Classification doctrine, analyze key landmark Supreme Court judgments that have shaped this field, and discuss the specific contexts of reservation in promotion and EWS reservation. Ultimately, the report will synthesize these elements to present a comprehensive understanding of the constitutional rationale underpinning reservation policies in India.

II. The Constitutional Framework: Articles 14, 15, and 16

The foundation of India’s commitment to equality rests primarily on Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, forming a crucial part of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III. These articles collectively establish the ‘equality code’, setting forth general principles and specific applications concerning non-discrimination and affirmative action.

Article 14: The Foundation of Equality

Article 14 proclaims: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” This pivotal article encompasses two distinct but complementary concepts ¹¹:

1. Equality Before Law: This concept, primarily derived from English Common Law and associated with A.V. Dicey’s ‘Rule of Law’, is essentially a negative concept.² It implies the absence of any special privileges in favour of any individual based on birth, creed, status, or other factors.² It mandates the equal subjection of all individuals and classes, regardless of their rank or position, to the ordinary law of the land administered by ordinary courts.³ In essence, no person is above the law.⁴
2. Equal Protection of the Laws: Borrowed from the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, this is a positive concept.³ It does not mean that all laws must apply universally or identically to everyone. Instead, it directs the State to ensure equality of treatment under equal circumstances.³ It mandates that “like should be treated alike” without discrimination, concerning both privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.³ Crucially, this implies that the State can treat persons differently if their circumstances are different, underpinning the principle that treating unequals equally can itself be a form of inequality.⁵

The scope of Article 14 is broad, applying to “any person,” which includes not only citizens but also non-citizens and legal entities like corporations residing within India’s territory.¹ At its core, Article 14 serves as a bulwark against arbitrary State action, demanding fairness and reasonableness in all legislative and executive functions.⁹

Articles 15 & 16: Specific Prohibitions and Enabling Provisions

While Article 14 lays down the general principle, Articles 15 and 16 address specific areas where discrimination is prohibited and where affirmative action is explicitly permitted.

• Article 15 focuses on prohibiting discrimination against citizens by the State only on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth (Article 15(1)).¹ It also guarantees access to public places like shops, restaurants, wells, and roads without discrimination on these grounds (Article 15(2)).¹
• Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State (Article 16(1)).⁴ It prohibits discrimination in public employment only on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence (Article 16(2)).⁴

Crucially, both Articles contain specific enabling clauses that empower the State to undertake affirmative action, including reservations, for certain groups. These clauses demonstrate a constitutional commitment to addressing specific forms of disadvantage—social, educational, economic, and representational—that extend beyond the general non-discrimination principle. The distinct nature of these clauses reveals a tailored approach designed to tackle different dimensions of backwardness and representation deficits.

Table 1: Enabling Provisions for Reservation under Articles 15 & 16

Article Clause	Amendment Act	Beneficiary Group	Context (Education/Employment)	Key Feature
15(4)	1st Amendment, 1951	SEBCs, SCs, STs	Education	Allows special provisions for advancement (incl. reservation)
15(5)	93rd Amendment, 2005	SEBCs, SCs, STs	Education	Allows reservation in all educational institutions (incl. private, excl. minority)
15(6)	103rd Amendment, 2019	Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)	Education	Allows special provisions & up to 10% reservation (excl. minority inst.)
16(4)	Original Provision	Backward class of citizens (not adequately represented)	Public Employment	Allows reservation in appointments/posts
16(4A)	77th (1995) & 85th (2001) Amdts.	SCs, STs (not adequately represented)	Public Employment	Allows reservation in promotion with consequential seniority
16(4B)	81st Amendment, 2000	SCs, STs	Public Employment	Allows carry-forward of unfilled vacancies (can exceed 50% limit that year)
16(6)	103rd Amendment, 2019	Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)	Public Employment	Allows up to 10% reservation in appointments/posts

(Note: SEBCs = Socially and Educationally Backward Classes; SCs = Scheduled Castes; STs = Scheduled Tribes; EWS = Economically Weaker Sections)

Judicial Interpretation: Enabling Clauses as Facets of Equality

The judicial understanding of these enabling clauses has evolved significantly. Initially, provisions like Article 15(4) and 16(4) were often perceived as exceptions to the general rule of equality laid down in Articles 15(1) and 16(1).⁵ This perspective implied that reservations were a deviation from the primary principle of non-discrimination.

However, landmark judgments, notably State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas and the nine-judge bench decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India ²⁸, fundamentally shifted this interpretation. The prevailing view now is that these enabling clauses are not exceptions but are rather emphatic statements or facets of the principle of equality itself.⁵ They are seen as specific applications and clarifications of the broader equality guarantee, designed to achieve real and substantive equality, not just formal equality.⁵

This shift in interpretation carries profound implications. Viewing these clauses as integral facets of equality, rather than exceptions, transforms the State’s role. It suggests that the State has a positive obligation, stemming from the mandate of Article 14 itself, to take affirmative steps, including reservation, to address existing inequalities and backwardness.⁵ Reservation, under this view, becomes a constitutionally sanctioned tool not to depart from equality, but to fulfill its substantive promise by treating unequals unequally to bring them to a level playing field.⁵

III. Justification Through Substantive Equality

The constitutional justification for reservation policies in India is deeply intertwined with the concept of substantive equality, as distinct from formal equality. Understanding this distinction is crucial to appreciating how affirmative action measures are rationalized within the framework of Article 14.

Distinguishing Formal vs. Substantive Equality

• Formal Equality: This approach emphasizes treating all individuals identically under the law, regardless of their background or circumstances.¹⁰ It focuses on consistency, procedural fairness, and the absence of overt discrimination.⁸ It aligns closely with the ‘equality before the law’ component of Article 14, ensuring that the law is applied uniformly without granting special privileges.⁹ The core principle is “treating likes alike”.³⁰ However, a significant limitation of formal equality is that in societies with deep-seated historical and structural inequalities, treating everyone the same can inadvertently perpetuate and even reinforce existing disadvantages.¹⁰ Applying the same rules to individuals starting from vastly different positions does not guarantee fair competition or equal outcomes.
• Substantive Equality: This approach moves beyond mere identical treatment and focuses on achieving equality in outcomes or results.¹⁰ It acknowledges that individuals and groups may start from different positions due to historical discrimination, systemic barriers, and differing needs.¹⁰ To achieve genuine fairness, substantive equality permits and sometimes mandates differential treatment to level the playing field and compensate for past and present disadvantages.⁸ It aligns with the ‘equal protection of the laws’ aspect of Article 14, particularly the understanding that equality requires treating unequals unequally.⁵ The focus shifts from equal treatment to ensuring equal opportunity in a real sense, addressing the root causes of inequality to achieve equitable results.¹⁰

The constitutional justification for reservation fundamentally rests on prioritizing substantive equality over formal equality. It recognizes that in the Indian context, marked by centuries of caste-based discrimination and social exclusion, adhering strictly to formal equality would fail to address the entrenched disadvantages faced by marginalized communities.¹ Identical treatment in such a deeply unequal society would merely preserve the status quo, reinforcing existing hierarchies and disadvantages.

Reservation as a Tool for Substantive Equality

Reservation policies, as a form of affirmative action, are explicitly designed as instruments to achieve substantive equality.⁸ They aim to counteract the effects of historical and ongoing discrimination faced by SCs, STs, and OBCs by providing them with preferential access to education and public employment.⁸ The rationale is that these measures are necessary to:

• Remedy Historical Injustice: Compensate for centuries of oppression and denial of opportunities based on caste and tribal identity.⁸
• Ensure Adequate Representation: Address the under-representation of these communities in crucial sectors like higher education and government services, thereby promoting inclusivity.⁸
• Promote Social Mobility: Provide pathways for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds to improve their socio-economic status and break cycles of poverty and exclusion.¹⁰
• Level the Playing Field: Create conditions where members of marginalized groups can compete fairly with those from more privileged backgrounds.⁸

Judicial pronouncements have increasingly recognized this link between reservation and substantive equality. For instance, the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh emphasized that reservations should be viewed not as exceptions to merit but as integral components of ensuring fairness and addressing historical disadvantages, aligning with the principle of substantive equality.¹⁰ The Court noted that substantive equality aims to eliminate individual, institutional, and systemic discrimination to enable full participation in society.²⁹

Linking Substantive Equality to Article 14

The justification for reservations is anchored within Article 14 itself, particularly through the lens of substantive equality. The ‘equal protection of the laws’ clause inherently supports the idea that the State must take differing circumstances into account to ensure true equality.⁵ As has been observed, treating unequals equally is a violation of equality.⁹

The specific enabling provisions found in Articles 15(4), 15(5), 15(6), 16(4), 16(4A), 16(4B), and 16(6) are not seen as contradicting Article 14. Instead, they are interpreted as specific, constitutionally sanctioned manifestations of the principle of substantive equality.⁵ These clauses provide the necessary tools for the State to fulfill the positive obligation inherent in Article 14 – the obligation to actively promote equality and remedy disadvantage in the specific Indian context of historical discrimination and social hierarchy.⁵ Without these enabling provisions, the guarantee of equality in Article 14 might remain a formal promise rather than a lived reality for millions.

The ongoing debate surrounding reservation policies often reflects the inherent tension between these two conceptions of equality. Arguments emphasizing individual merit, efficiency, and non-discrimination often draw from the principles of formal equality.²⁸ Conversely, arguments supporting reservations highlight the need for group representation, compensatory justice, and addressing systemic disadvantage, grounding themselves in the principles of substantive equality.⁸ Landmark cases like Champakam Dorairajan and Indra Sawhney illustrate the judiciary’s struggle to balance these competing perspectives within the constitutional framework.²⁸

IV. The Reasonable Classification Doctrine Applied to Reservations

The primary legal mechanism used by Indian courts to test the validity of laws under Article 14, including those providing for reservations, is the doctrine of Reasonable Classification. This doctrine reconciles the guarantee of equality with the practical necessity of legislation, acknowledging that the State must often differentiate between persons or things to achieve specific objectives.

The Doctrine Explained

Article 14, while guaranteeing equality, does not forbid classification or differentiation per se. What it prohibits is class legislation, which involves making arbitrary distinctions or conferring privileges upon a select group without any sound basis.⁹ It permits reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation.²

However, such classification must not be “arbitrary, artificial or evasive”.² It must be based on real and substantial distinctions.¹¹ This doctrine provides the framework for determining whether a particular legislative or executive differentiation violates the equality principle.

The Twin Tests for Reasonable Classification

Stemming from early landmark judgments like State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar ²³, Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar ³⁰, and Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar ¹¹, the Supreme Court established two cumulative conditions that a classification must satisfy to be deemed reasonable:

1. Intelligible Differentia: The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia. This means the basis for distinguishing the persons or things grouped together from those left out must be clear, understandable, logical, and based on some real difference.² The differentia identifies who is being classified.
2. Rational Nexus: The differentia identified must have a rational relation or nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute or state action in question.² There must be a logical connection between the basis of classification and the purpose of the law. This test addresses why the classification is being made and whether the classification serves that purpose.

If a classification satisfies both these tests, it is considered reasonable and does not violate Article 14. If it fails either test, the classification is deemed arbitrary and discriminatory, thus violating the equality guarantee.

Applying the Tests to Reservation Policies

Reservation policies are justified under Article 14 using this doctrine:

• Intelligible Differentia:

• For SCs, STs, and SEBCs: The intelligible differentia is identified as their social and educational backwardness, often stemming from historical caste-based discrimination and resulting in their inadequate representation in various spheres.¹ These groups are considered distinct due to the unique systemic disadvantages they have faced.
• For EWS: The intelligible differentia is economic disadvantage, defined by specific income and asset criteria, distinguishing this group from those who are economically better off and also from those covered under SC/ST/OBC reservations.⁴
• Rational Nexus:

• For SCs, STs, and SEBCs: The objective of the reservation is to achieve social justice, ensure adequate representation, empower these historically marginalized communities, and remedy past discrimination.² The rational nexus lies in the premise that providing reserved seats in education and employment is a direct and logical means to achieve these objectives by offering opportunities for upliftment and participation.²⁶
• For EWS: The objective is to address economic inequality among those not covered by other reservations and promote their advancement.⁷⁰ The rational nexus is that providing reserved opportunities helps overcome economic barriers to education and employment, thus contributing to their economic upliftment.²⁶

By framing reservation policies within this doctrine, the State argues that it is not engaging in arbitrary discrimination but is making a permissible differentiation based on relevant criteria (backwardness, inadequate representation, economic status) directly linked to legitimate constitutional objectives (social justice, representation, economic upliftment). This legal mechanism allows the pursuit of substantive equality goals while formally adhering to the structure of Article 14.¹⁸

Judicial Application and Constraints

Courts have generally accepted these classifications as reasonable, thereby upholding the constitutionality of reservations in principle. However, judicial review ensures that these classifications remain within bounds. Landmark cases like Indra Sawhney imposed constraints such as the 50% ceiling rule and the exclusion of the ‘creamy layer’ to prevent reverse discrimination and ensure benefits are targeted.² Similarly, M. Nagaraj imposed specific conditions regarding data and administrative efficiency for reservations in promotion.⁷³ The Janhit Abhiyan decision explicitly found the EWS classification reasonable under Article 14, though this remains debated.⁷²

The application of the ‘rational nexus’ test, in particular, remains crucial and often contentious. It requires demonstrating not just a link, but a rational link between the classification and the objective. Challenges frequently question whether reservation is the most effective or appropriate means to achieve the stated goals, whether it truly benefits the intended recipients, or whether its potential negative consequences (like impact on merit or efficiency) outweigh its benefits.²⁸ The judicial imposition of limits and conditions reflects the ongoing effort to ensure this nexus remains genuinely ‘rational’ and proportionate.

V. Early Judicial Scrutiny: State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (AIR 1951 SC 226)

The first significant judicial test for reservation policies in independent India came in the case of State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan. This case laid bare the initial constitutional tension between the fundamental right to non-discrimination and the state’s objective of promoting the welfare of weaker sections, leading directly to the first amendment of the Constitution.

Case Summary

The case challenged the validity of the ‘Communal Government Order’ (Communal G.O.) issued by the Province of Madras in 1927, which continued to be enforced post-Constitution. This G.O. mandated a specific communal quota for admissions into state-maintained engineering and medical colleges, allocating seats based on religion and caste categories: Non-Brahmin (Hindus), Backward Hindus, Brahmins, Harijans, Anglo-Indians & Indian Christians, and Muslims.³² Smt. Champakam Dorairajan, a Brahmin candidate, was denied admission to a medical college despite securing marks higher than many admitted candidates from reserved categories. She challenged the G.O., arguing it violated her fundamental rights.³²

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Madras High Court’s decision, striking down the Communal G.O. as unconstitutional.³² The Court found the G.O. violated fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution:

1. Violation of Article 15(1): The Court held that the classification based solely on caste and religion for admission constituted discrimination prohibited under Article 15(1).³²
2. Violation of Article 29(2): The Court emphasized that Article 29(2) explicitly prohibits denial of admission into any state-maintained or state-aided educational institution on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language, or any of them. The Communal G.O. directly contravened this provision by denying admission to the petitioner solely based on her caste.³²

Conflict: Fundamental Rights vs. Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs)

The State of Madras defended the Communal G.O. by invoking Article 46, a Directive Principle under Part IV, which directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of weaker sections, particularly SCs and STs, and protect them from social injustice.³² The State argued that Article 46 imposed an obligation that should override the limitations in Article 29(2).

The Supreme Court decisively rejected this argument, establishing a crucial principle regarding the relationship between Fundamental Rights (Part III) and DPSPs (Part IV). The Court ruled that:

• DPSPs, under Article 37, are explicitly made non-enforceable by any court.⁷⁵
• Fundamental Rights, being enforceable (under Article 32), are paramount and cannot be abridged or overridden by DPSPs.³²
• The Constitution must be read harmoniously, but in case of direct conflict, the enforceable Fundamental Rights would prevail over the non-enforceable Directive Principles.³²

The Court also noted the presence of Article 16(4) allowing reservation in employment and contrasted it with the absence of a similar explicit provision for educational reservations under Article 15 or 29 at the time, suggesting a possible deliberate distinction by the framers.⁷⁵

Consequence: The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951

The Champakam Dorairajan judgment created a significant hurdle for the government’s affirmative action policies in education. To overcome this judicial pronouncement and explicitly enable reservations in educational institutions, the Parliament swiftly enacted the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.³²

This amendment introduced Clause (4) to Article 15, which states:

“Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.” 1

This amendment retrospectively validated reservations in educational institutions for SEBCs, SCs, and STs, effectively nullifying the basis of the Champakam Dorairajan ruling in this specific context. It established a clear constitutional mandate allowing the state to pursue substantive equality through special provisions in education, even if it meant differential treatment based on social and educational backwardness. The case thus highlights the initial judicial emphasis on formal non-discrimination and the subsequent constitutional course correction to explicitly empower affirmative action in the educational sphere.

VI. Defining the Contours: Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 477)

The judgment of the nine-judge Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, popularly known as the Mandal Commission case, stands as a watershed moment in the jurisprudence of reservation policy in India. It addressed the contentious issue of implementing the recommendations of the Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission), which proposed a 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government jobs and services.⁸ The case consolidated and clarified several fundamental principles governing reservations under Article 16(4), attempting to strike a balance between social justice and equality of opportunity.

Key Principles Established by the Majority (6:3)

The Supreme Court, while upholding the government’s decision to implement 27% reservation for OBCs, laid down several crucial guidelines and limitations:

1. Validity of OBC Reservation: The Court affirmed the constitutional validity of providing reservation for OBCs under Article 16(4), recognizing it as a legitimate tool for achieving social justice and ensuring representation for backward classes in public employment.⁸
2. Criteria for Identifying Backward Classes (OBCs):

• The Court clarified that ‘backwardness’ under Article 16(4) must be primarily social backwardness, though educational and economic backwardness are relevant and often stem from social backwardness.²⁷
• Caste was accepted as a permissible, and often dominant, indicator or starting point for identifying social backwardness in the Indian context, given its historical significance in structuring social hierarchy and disadvantage. However, caste cannot be the sole determinant.²⁸ Identification must involve looking at other factors indicating backwardness within a caste group.
• Economic criteria alone were deemed insufficient to classify a group as ‘backward’ for the purposes of Article 16(4) reservation.²⁷

3. Exclusion of the ‘Creamy Layer’: This was perhaps the most significant innovation of the judgment. The Court mandated that socially and economically advanced individuals or sections within the identified backward classes – termed the ‘creamy layer’ – must be excluded from the benefits of reservation.⁸ The rationale was that reservation is intended for the genuinely disadvantaged, and allowing the advanced sections (‘creamy layer’) to corner these benefits would defeat the purpose of upliftment and violate the principle of equality among the backward classes themselves.²⁷ This principle implicitly acknowledges that backwardness is not immutable and individuals within designated groups can achieve advancement, rendering reservation unnecessary for them. At the time, the Court clarified this exclusion applied specifically to OBCs under Article 16(4), not SCs/STs.³⁴
4. The 50% Ceiling Limit: The Court strongly reaffirmed the general principle that the total quantum of reservations (vertical reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs combined) should not exceed 50% of the available posts in any given year.⁸ This ceiling was deemed necessary to uphold the principle of equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) for the general category and maintain administrative efficiency. However, the Court did allow for exceeding this limit in “extraordinary situations” involving far-flung or remote areas with peculiar conditions, though such exceptions were expected to be rare.⁸ This inherent flexibility, while intended for exceptional cases, left room for future debate.
5. No Reservation in Promotions: The majority held that the scope of Article 16(4) was confined to reservations in initial appointments and did not extend to reservations in promotions.³⁴ This overruled previous judgments like General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari. (This specific finding was subsequently superseded by constitutional amendments like the 77th Amendment introducing Article 16(4A)).
6. Classification within Backward Classes: The Court permitted the further classification of backward classes into ‘backward’ and ‘more backward’ categories for the purpose of apportioning reservation benefits, allowing for a more nuanced approach to address varying degrees of disadvantage.²⁷
7. Article 16(4) as a Facet of Equality: The judgment reiterated the evolved understanding that Article 16(4) is not an exception to the guarantee of equality of opportunity in Article 16(1), but rather a facet or an emphatic statement of the classification permissible under Article 16(1) to achieve substantive equality.⁵

In essence, Indra Sawhney performed a critical balancing act. It validated the use of caste as a significant factor in identifying backwardness for OBC reservations, thereby endorsing a key instrument of substantive equality. Simultaneously, it introduced crucial limitations – the creamy layer exclusion and the 50% ceiling – aimed at ensuring that reservation remains targeted at the genuinely disadvantaged, prevents reverse discrimination, and maintains a balance with the broader principle of equality and administrative efficiency. The judgment sought to consolidate and rationalize reservation policy, providing a framework that, while affirming the need for affirmative action, also aimed to contain its potential excesses.

VII. Reservation in Promotions: Judicial Evolution

The question of whether reservations should extend beyond initial appointments to promotions in public employment has been a particularly complex and contentious area, marked by a distinct cycle of judicial pronouncements and subsequent constitutional amendments.

Post-Indra Sawhney Developments

The Indra Sawhney judgment in 1992 explicitly ruled that Article 16(4) did not permit reservations in promotions.³⁴ This created significant implications for existing promotion policies benefiting SCs and STs. In response, Parliament intervened through a series of constitutional amendments to specifically enable reservation in promotion for these communities.

Key Amendments Enabling Promotion Quotas:

• The Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995: Introduced Article 16(4A), empowering the State to make provisions for reservation in matters of promotion in favour of SCs and STs if they are deemed inadequately represented in state services.⁴
• The Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000: Inserted Article 16(4B), which allowed unfilled reserved vacancies (backlog vacancies) for SCs/STs from one year to be carried forward to subsequent years and treated as a separate class of vacancies. This meant that the 50% ceiling on reservations would not apply to the filling of these backlog vacancies in the carry-forward year.⁴
• The Constitution (Eighty-second Amendment) Act, 2000: Added a proviso to Article 335 (which generally requires claims of SCs/STs to be considered consistently with administrative efficiency). This proviso allowed the State to relax qualifying marks or lower evaluation standards in matters of promotion for SCs and STs.⁷³
• The Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001: Amended Article 16(4A) to provide for “consequential seniority” for SC/ST candidates promoted through reservation. This aimed to overturn the ‘catch-up rule’ established in earlier judgments (Virpal Singh, Ajit Singh), which allowed senior general category candidates promoted later to regain seniority over junior SC/ST candidates promoted earlier via reservation.⁷³

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)

The constitutional validity of these four amendments (77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th) was challenged before a five-judge bench in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India.⁷³

• Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of all the challenged amendments.⁷³ It recognized Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) as enabling provisions, granting discretion to the State but not imposing a duty to provide reservation in promotion.⁷⁴
• Imposition of Conditions: Crucially, while upholding the amendments, the Court imposed three stringent conditions that the State must satisfy before making provisions for reservation in promotion under Article 16(4A). These conditions, often referred to as “compelling reasons,” required the State to demonstrate, based on quantifiable data:

1. Current Backwardness: The specific SC or ST community benefiting from the promotion quota continues to be backward.⁸
2. Inadequacy of Representation: The SC or ST community is inadequately represented in the relevant class or classes of posts within the service.⁸
3. Overall Administrative Efficiency: The reservation in promotion must be consistent with the maintenance of overall administrative efficiency, as mandated by Article 335.⁸

The Court also implicitly affirmed that the exercise of power under these enabling provisions remained subject to broader constitutional limitations like the 50% ceiling (except as modified by Article 16(4B)) and the concept of the creamy layer.⁷⁴ The Nagaraj judgment, therefore, validated the legislative framework for promotion quotas but made their implementation contingent on rigorous data collection and justification by the State.

Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018 & 2022)

The conditions laid down in Nagaraj, particularly the need to collect quantifiable data on current backwardness for SCs and STs, proved difficult for many States to implement, leading to numerous challenges and calls for reconsideration of the Nagaraj verdict.⁸²

• 2018 Ruling (5-judge bench):

• The Court declined to refer Nagaraj to a larger seven-judge bench for reconsideration.⁸²
• Modification of Backwardness Condition: The Court significantly modified the first Nagaraj condition. It struck down the requirement for the State to collect quantifiable data to demonstrate the current backwardness of SCs and STs before granting reservation in promotion.⁸² The Court reasoned that SCs and STs are constitutionally presumed to be backward based on their inclusion in the Presidential lists under Articles 341 and 342. Requiring the State to prove their backwardness again was deemed contrary to the nine-judge bench decision in Indra Sawhney.⁸³
• Application of Creamy Layer to SC/ST Promotions: In a major development, the Court held that the principle of creamy layer exclusion must be applied to SCs and STs in the context of reservation in promotions.⁸ It reasoned that excluding the advanced sections (‘creamy layer’) within SCs/STs from promotion quotas was essential to uphold the principle of equality under Article 14. Failing to do so would treat unequals (backward SC/STs and advanced SC/STs) alike and equals (general category and advanced SC/STs) differently.⁸⁵ The State is thus obligated to exclude the creamy layer among SCs/STs when implementing reservation in promotion.
• Inadequate Representation and Efficiency Conditions Upheld: The Court reaffirmed the other two Nagaraj conditions: the need for quantifiable data to demonstrate inadequate representation of SCs/STs in the specific cadre, and the requirement to maintain administrative efficiency.⁸⁵
• 2022 Ruling (Clarifications): Subsequent hearings led to a 2022 judgment that provided clarifications on applying the Jarnail Singh (2018) principles, particularly regarding the methodology for determining inadequate representation (confirming it should be cadre-based, not group-based) and the process for review, without fundamentally altering the 2018 ruling.

This judicial evolution demonstrates the intricate balancing involved in reservation in promotion. While Parliament acted to enable such reservations after Indra Sawhney, the judiciary, through Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh, has sought to regulate its implementation by imposing conditions related to data, efficiency, and, significantly, extending the creamy layer exclusion to SCs/STs in this specific context. The focus for justifying promotion quotas for SCs/STs now rests heavily on demonstrating their inadequate representation in specific cadres through quantifiable data, rather than on proving their inherent backwardness.

VIII. Economic Backwardness as a Criterion: EWS Reservation

A significant departure from the traditional focus on social and educational backwardness occurred with the introduction of reservations based solely on economic criteria for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).

The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019

This amendment introduced economic disadvantage as an independent ground for affirmative action, distinct from the existing framework for SCs, STs, and OBCs.⁶⁹ Key changes included:

• Insertion of Article 15(6): Empowered the State to make special provisions for the advancement of any EWS of citizens, other than those mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) (i.e., SEBCs, SCs, STs). It also enabled up to 10% reservation for EWS in admissions to educational institutions (including private, excluding minority institutions), in addition to existing reservations.⁴
• Insertion of Article 16(6): Empowered the State to make provision for the reservation of up to 10% of appointments or posts in favour of any EWS of citizens, other than those mentioned in clause (4) (i.e., backward classes). This reservation is also in addition to existing reservations.⁴

The amendment defined EWS based on criteria like family income and indicators of economic disadvantage (e.g., landholding size), to be notified by the State.⁷¹ Crucially, it explicitly excluded citizens belonging to SC, ST, and socially and educationally backward classes (OBCs) from being eligible for the EWS quota.⁶⁹

Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)

The constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment was challenged before a five-judge Constitution Bench on multiple grounds.⁶⁹ The primary arguments against the amendment were:

1. Violation of the Basic Structure: By introducing economic criteria as the sole basis for reservation, it allegedly altered the fundamental nature of reservation, which was historically aimed at remedying social discrimination.
2. Breach of the 50% Ceiling: The additional 10% EWS quota breached the 50% limit set in Indra Sawhney.
3. Violation of Equality (Article 14): Excluding SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS quota was discriminatory, as it denied benefits to the poor within these already disadvantaged groups.
4. Economic Criteria Invalid: Indra Sawhney had held that economic criteria alone could not be the basis for reservation under Article 16(4).

Majority Ruling (3:2): Upholding the Amendment

The Supreme Court, by a 3:2 majority, upheld the constitutional validity of the 103rd Amendment.⁶⁹ The key findings of the majority were:

• Economic Criteria as Valid Classification: The majority held that reservation based solely on economic criteria is permissible and does not violate the basic structure. Economic backwardness constitutes a valid and reasonable classification under Article 14, distinct from social and educational backwardness.⁷² Reservation was viewed as an instrument of affirmative action to ensure an inclusive approach, and targeting economic disadvantage was a legitimate legislative objective.⁷²
• 50% Ceiling Not Inviolable: The majority ruled that the 50% ceiling limit established in Indra Sawhney is not rigid or inflexible for all time.⁷⁰ Furthermore, they held that the 50% limit applies specifically to reservations made under Articles 15(4), 15(5), and 16(4) (for SCs, STs, and OBCs) and does not apply to the EWS reservation introduced under the new Articles 15(6) and 16(6).⁶⁹ This compartmentalized view allowed the EWS quota to exist over and above the 50% limit.
• Exclusion of SC/ST/OBCs Justified: The exclusion of SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS quota was held to be non-discriminatory and constitutionally valid.⁷⁰ The reasoning was that these groups are already beneficiaries of existing special provisions (reservations) under Articles 15(4)/(5) and 16(4). Allowing them access to the EWS quota would amount to conferring double benefits. Therefore, the classification excluding them from EWS was deemed reasonable.⁷⁰

Dissenting Opinion (CJI Lalit and Bhat J.)

The dissenting judges argued strongly against the amendment’s validity.⁷² They contended that:

• Reservation based solely on economic criteria violates the basic structure, as reservation was conceived as a tool to remedy historical social discrimination, not purely economic disparity.
• Excluding SCs, STs, and OBCs from the EWS quota amounts to discrimination based on caste and violates the equality code. It creates discrimination within the poor, denying benefits to the poorest sections who also belong to historically disadvantaged groups.
• Breaching the 50% ceiling rule violates the principle of equality and risks turning the exception (reservation) into the rule.

The Janhit Abhiyan judgment thus marks a significant expansion of the concept of reservation in India, introducing economic status as a standalone criterion and effectively creating a separate track for EWS reservation outside the previously established limits governing SC/ST/OBC quotas. This decision potentially fragments the application of the equality principle and raises questions about the future direction of affirmative action in India. Furthermore, the majority’s view on the flexibility of the 50% ceiling creates a doctrinal conflict with the earlier Constitution Bench decision in M. Nagaraj, which had suggested the ceiling was integral to the equality structure, potentially requiring future clarification by a larger bench.⁶⁹

IX. Synthesis: Constitutional Justification of Reservation Policies

The constitutional justification of reservation policies in India, when viewed against the guarantee of equality in Article 14, is a complex tapestry woven from specific constitutional provisions, evolving judicial interpretations, and responses to socio-political realities. It is not a static concept but a dynamic one, shaped by a continuous dialogue between the legislature and the judiciary.

Affirmative Action as Constitutionally Sanctioned

At its core, reservation is justified as a constitutionally sanctioned form of affirmative action. While Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, the Constitution itself, through the specific enabling clauses added to Articles 15 and 16 (namely 15(4), 15(5), 15(6), 16(4), 16(4A), 16(4B), and 16(6)), explicitly empowers the State to make special provisions for designated disadvantaged groups.⁴ The crucial interpretative shift, solidified in cases like N.M. Thomas and Indra Sawhney, was to view these enabling clauses not as exceptions detracting from Article 14’s guarantee, but as instruments designed to achieve the substantive equality that Article 14 envisages.⁵ This perspective frames reservation as a means to fulfill, rather than violate, the constitutional mandate of equality by addressing historical injustices and structural disadvantages.

Role of Reasonable Classification and Judicial Review

The doctrine of Reasonable Classification serves as the primary legal test under Article 14 to validate these special provisions.²⁶ For reservation policies to be constitutionally permissible, they must satisfy the twin tests:

1. Intelligible Differentia: The classification of beneficiary groups (SCs, STs, SEBCs, EWS) must be based on discernible characteristics like social and educational backwardness, historical discrimination, inadequate representation, or economic disadvantage.
2. Rational Nexus: This classification must have a direct and reasonable connection to the legitimate state objective, such as promoting social justice, ensuring adequate representation in public life, empowering marginalized communities, or alleviating economic hardship.

Judicial review has been central to shaping the contours of reservation policy. Courts have interpreted the scope of the enabling provisions, scrutinized the basis of classification, and imposed limitations to ensure fairness and balance. Key interventions include:

• Establishing the primacy of Fundamental Rights over DPSPs initially (Champakam Dorairajan).³²
• Consolidating OBC reservations while introducing the 50% ceiling and creamy layer exclusion (Indra Sawhney).²⁸
• Regulating reservation in promotion by imposing conditions related to data on backwardness (later modified for SC/STs), inadequate representation, and administrative efficiency (M. Nagaraj, Jarnail Singh).⁷³
• Validating economic criteria as a standalone basis for reservation and compartmentalizing the EWS quota from the 50% ceiling (Janhit Abhiyan).⁷²

Furthermore, the development of the “arbitrariness” test, particularly “manifest arbitrariness,” adds another layer of scrutiny under Article 14.²² While closely related to reasonable classification (an unreasonable classification is typically arbitrary), this test potentially allows courts to strike down state action, including legislation, that might formally pass the classification test but is deemed capricious, excessive, irrational, or lacking a guiding principle in its purpose or effect.⁹¹ This evolving standard further complicates the evaluation of reservation policies under the equality guarantee.

Table 2: Landmark Judgments on Reservation & Article 14

Case Name & Year	Key Issue(s)	Core Ruling on Reservation	Key Principles/Tests Established/Modified	Impact on Reservation Policy
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951)	Validity of communal quotas in education vs. Arts 15(1), 29(2); FRs vs. DPSPs	Struck down communal quotas in education.	FRs prevail over DPSPs; No explicit basis for educational reservation then.	Led to 1st Amendment, adding Art 15(4) to enable educational reservations.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992)	Validity of 27% OBC reservation (Mandal); Criteria for backwardness; Limits on reservation.	Upheld OBC reservation.	Caste permissible indicator (not sole) of social backwardness; Economic criteria alone insufficient; Creamy layer exclusion for OBCs; 50% ceiling rule (vertical); No reservation in promotion (later amended).	Consolidated OBC reservation framework; Introduced key limitations (50%, creamy layer).
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)	Validity of amendments enabling reservation in promotion for SC/STs (Arts 16(4A), 16(4B), 335 proviso).	Upheld amendments as enabling provisions.	Imposed conditions for promotion quotas: Quantifiable data on current backwardness, inadequate representation, and administrative efficiency.	Validated promotion quotas constitutionally but imposed stringent data requirements for implementation.
Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)	Reconsideration of Nagaraj; Backwardness data for SC/STs; Creamy layer for SC/STs.	Nagaraj not reconsidered; Backwardness data requirement for SC/STs struck down.	SC/STs presumed backward (no need for current data); Creamy layer exclusion principle extended to SC/STs in promotions; Data for inadequate representation & efficiency maintained.	Eased one condition from Nagaraj but introduced creamy layer exclusion for SC/ST promotions.
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022)	Validity of 103rd Amendment (EWS Reservation); Economic criteria; 50% ceiling; Exclusion of SC/ST/OBCs.	Upheld 103rd Amendment (EWS quota).	Economic criteria valid standalone basis for reservation; 50% ceiling not inflexible & inapplicable to EWS quota; Exclusion of SC/ST/OBCs from EWS permissible.	Introduced economic reservation; Compartmentalized EWS quota; Questioned rigidity of 50% ceiling.

The Balancing Act

Ultimately, the constitutional justification for reservation policies reflects a delicate and ongoing balancing act.⁸ It seeks to weigh the fundamental right to equality and non-discrimination for every individual against the compelling need to address historical group disadvantage, ensure adequate representation for marginalized communities, and promote social justice, all while considering the imperative of maintaining administrative efficiency.⁷³

X. Conclusion

Reservation policies in India, despite being a subject of continuous debate and legal challenge, find their constitutional justification rooted firmly within the equality code enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. The journey from Champakam Dorairajan to Janhit Abhiyan reveals a dynamic process of constitutional interpretation and adaptation. The initial emphasis on formal equality, which led to the striking down of early reservation measures in education, gave way to a more nuanced understanding centered on substantive equality. This shift was facilitated by constitutional amendments, particularly the introduction of enabling clauses like Article 15(4), and solidified by judicial pronouncements recognizing these clauses not as exceptions, but as essential components of the equality guarantee itself.

The doctrine of Reasonable Classification provides the primary legal framework for validating reservations under Article 14, requiring that classifications based on social, educational, or economic backwardness are founded on an intelligible differentia and bear a rational nexus to the objective of achieving social justice, representation, and upliftment. The Supreme Court, through landmark cases like Indra Sawhney, M. Nagaraj, and Jarnail Singh, has played a critical role in defining the contours and limits of reservation – establishing criteria for backwardness, mandating the exclusion of the ‘creamy layer’, setting (and later debating the flexibility of) the 50% ceiling, and imposing conditions for reservation in promotions concerning data and administrative efficiency. The validation of EWS reservation in Janhit Abhiyan marks a further evolution, introducing economic criteria as a standalone basis for affirmative action and potentially altering the landscape of reservation policy.

The constitutional justification, therefore, is not static but has evolved, reflecting a continuous effort to balance the ideals of individual equality with the imperative of remedying historical group-based discrimination and promoting an inclusive society. Reservation policies are constitutionally permissible and justified as instruments aimed at realizing the transformative vision of the Indian Constitution – one that seeks not just formal equality before the law, but genuine equality of status and opportunity for all its citizens. The interpretation and application of these policies, however, remain subject to ongoing legislative refinement and judicial scrutiny, ensuring their continued alignment with the fundamental principles of equality and justice.

Works cited

1. The Development of Reservation Policies Under Article 15 of the Indian Constitution and Social Justice in India – IJFMR, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2024/4/25861.pdf
2. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution – iPleaders, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/article-14/
3. Right to Equality [Article 14 to 18] – Definition & Importance – Indian Polity Notes for UPSC, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/right-to-equality/
4. Right to Equality (Article 14 to 18): A Comprehensive Guide, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.nextias.com/blog/right-to-equality/
5. upr-info.org, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://upr-info.org/sites/default/files/documents/2014-06/a_hrc_wg.6_13_ind_1_india_annexii.pdf
6. Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution and women’s rights, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/hrdp05/chapter/indian-constitutional-framework-articles-14-15-and-16-of-the-indian-constitution-and-womens-rights/
7. PART III FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.mea.gov.in/images/pdf1/part3.pdf
8. Right to Equality and Affirmative Action: Balancing Justice and …, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://theoryofabrogation.com/%E2%9A%96%EF%B8%8F-right-to-equality-and-affirmative-action-balancing-justice-and-fairness/
9. (PDF) A CRITICAL STUDY ON ARTICLE 14 WITH RESPECT TO CASE LAW – ResearchGate, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353322483_A_CRITICAL_STUDY_ON_ARTICLE_14_WITH_RESPECT_TO_CASE_LAW
10. Formal and Substantive Equality – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/formal-and-substantive-equality/
11. Constitutional Law of India – Chapter 7 – Right to Equality – Student Manupatra, accessed on April 16, 2025, http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Constitutional-Law-of-India/CHAPTER-7.htm
12. Right to Equality : Doctrine of Reasonable classification and the Principle of absence of arbitrariness. Sem II Unit I – LBR Law College, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lbrlawcollege.org/right-to-equality-doctrine-of-reasonable-classification-and-the-principle-of-absence-of-arbitrariness-sem-ii-unit-i/
13. Article 14 – Equality Before Law and Equality protection of the law – Articles – Manupatra, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Article-14-Equality-Before-Law-and-Equality-protection-of-the-law
14. Article 14 of Indian Constitution, Equality Before Law, Explanation, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.studyiq.com/articles/article-14-of-indian-constitution/
15. Reasonable Classification Test – Only IAS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://pwonlyias.com/current-affairs/reasonable-classification-test/
16. Difference Between Equality Before Law and Equal Protection of Law – The Legal School, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://thelegalschool.in/blog/difference-between-equality-before-law-and-equal-protection-of-law
17. Brief Thread On Article 14: Right To Equality – Unacademy, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://unacademy.com/content/bank-exam/study-material/general-awareness/brief-thread-on-article-14-right-to-equality/
18. DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION – Aishwarya Sandeep – WordPress.com, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://aishwaryasandeep.wordpress.com/2021/09/20/doctrine-of-reasonable-classification/
19. Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Wikipedia, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_14_of_the_Constitution_of_India
20. Article 14 – UPSC Polity Notes – Compass by Rau’s IAS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://compass.rauias.com/polity/article-14/
21. Article 14 of Indian Constitution – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/article-14-of-indian-constitution/
22. Article 14 and Arbitrariness vis-à-vis Legislative Action | SCC Times – SCC Online, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/10/11/article-14-and-arbitrariness-vis-a-vis-legislative-action/
23. The Old and New Doctrines of Equality: A Critical Study of Nexus Tests and Doctrine of Non-Arbitrariness – EBC, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/91v3a1.htm
24. Case Brief: E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/e-p-royappa-v-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-air-1974-sc-555/
25. Summer Issue 2016 ILI Law Review, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://ili.ac.in/pdf/paper11.pdf
26. Article 14 of the Constitution of India – UPSC, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://amoghavarshaiaskas.in/article-14-of-the-constitution-of-india/
27. INDRA SAWHNEY & OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA – Jus Corpus, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.juscorpus.com/indra-sawhney-others-v-union-of-india%EF%BF%BC/
28. Indra Sawhney Vs Union of India – Summary & Judgement | UPSC, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/indra-sawhney-case-1992-sc-judgements
29. Supreme Court Review 2024: Recognising ‘substantive equality’ to address systemic barriers, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/journal/supreme-court-review-2024-recognising-substantive-equality-to-address-systemic-barriers/
30. The development of indirect discrimination law in India: Slow, uncertain, and unsteady, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24730580.2024.2412898
31. Fragmentation or Fairness? The Indian Supreme Court’s Judgment on Sub-Classification of SCs and STs – NYU Journal of International Law and Politics, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://nyujilp.org/fragmentation-or-fairness-the-indian-supreme-courts-judgment-on-sub-classification-of-scs-and-sts/
32. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951 …, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://theoryofabrogation.com/state-of-madras-v-champakam-dorairajan-1951-2/
33. Indra Sawhney vs Union of India – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/indra-sawhney-vs-union-of-india/
34. Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India – Wikipedia, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra_Sawhney_%26_Others_v._Union_of_India
35. Reasonable Classification Test – Drishti IAS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/reasonable-classification-test
36. Class Legislation – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/class-legislation/
37. Article 14 – Constitutional Law – Drishti Judiciary, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/article-14
38. Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & … on 28 …, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/685234/
39. Doctrine-of-Reasonable-Classification-as-an-Exception-to-the-Right-to-Equality.pdf – INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW MANAGEMENT & HUMANITIES, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/Doctrine-of-Reasonable-Classification-as-an-Exception-to-the-Right-to-Equality.pdf
40. Budhan Choudhry And Other vs The State Of Bihar on 2 December …, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1905739/
41. REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION UNDER INDIAN CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE 14, accessed on April 16, 2025, http://www.iralr.in/post/reasonable-classification-under-indian-constitution-article-14/
42. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED LEGAL RESEARCH ARTICLE 14 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION: AN ANALYSIS ARTICLE 14: Equality before, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://ijalr.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Article-14.pdf
43. THE DOCTRINE OF REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION-AN EXCEPTION TO THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY: CARISHMA BHARGAVA – ILSJCCL – Indian Legal Solution, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://journal.indianlegalsolution.com/2020/07/15/the-doctrine-of-reasonable-classification-an-exception-to-the-right-to-equality-carishma-bhargava/
44. RETHINKING “NON-ARBITRARINESS”, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Shankar_Article_NLUD.pdf
45. Right to Equality – PMF IAS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.pmfias.com/right-to-equality/
46. Doctrine of Reasonable Classification – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/doctrine-of-reasonable-classification/
47. Intelligible Differentia – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/intelligible-differentia/
48. The doctrine of reasonable classification – ORIGIN26 LAW LABS, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://origin26lawlabs.com/the-doctrine-of-reasonable-classification/
49. The State Of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar on 11 January, 1952, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/184660633/
50. State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) – iPleaders, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/state-of-west-bengal-vs-anwar-ali-sarkar-1952/
51. Case Summary: State Of West Bengal V. Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952 – LegalFly, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://legalfly.in/case-summary-state-of-west-bengal-v-anwar-ali-sarkar/
52. State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/state-of-west-bengal-v-anwar-ali-sarkar/
53. Sukanya Shantha V. UOI: A Laudable Application of the Principle of Intelligible Differentia, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://nliulawreview.nliu.ac.in/blog/sukanya-shantha-v-uoi-a-laudable-application-of-the-principle-of-intelligible-differentia/
54. State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) Summary for UPSC Polity Notes, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://notes.saralupsc.com/state-of-west-bengal-vs-anwar-ali-sarkar-1952-summary-for-upsc-polity-notes/
55. State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar: Upholding Equality Before the Law through Reasonable Classification – CaseMine, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/state-of-west-bengal-v.-anwar-ali-sarkar:-upholding-equality-before-the-law-through-reasonable-classification/view
56. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No. 1404 of 2023 Sukanya Shantha …Petitioner, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2023/51059/51059_2023_1_1502_56228_Judgement_03-Oct-2024.pdf
57. Budhan Choudhry and other v. State Of Bihar (AIR 191) 1) Reference Details Jurisdiction: Indian Supreme Court Date of Decision:, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Choudry.pdf
58. citedby: 1905739 – Indian Kanoon, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=citedby%3A%201905739&pagenum=8
59. Violation of Article 14 through Arbitrary Transfer of Tax Cases: Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India – CaseMine, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/violation-of-article-14-through-arbitrary-transfer-of-tax-cases:-bidi-supply-co.-v.-union-of-india/view
60. Supreme Court Upholds Entitlement of CRPF Personnel to Special Duty Allowance in North-Eastern Region – CaseMine, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/supreme-court-upholds-entitlement-of-crpf-personnel-to-special-duty-allowance-in-north-eastern-region/view
61. Equal Protection under Article 14: Insights from Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/equal-protection-under-article-14:-insights-from-budhan-choudhry-v.-state-of-bihar/view
62. ERT Case Summary: Budhan Choudhry and other v. State Of Bihar (AIR 191), accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.equalrightstrust.org/content/ert-case-summary-budhan-choudhry-and-other-v-state-bihar-air-191
63. Ram Krishna Dalmia V. Justice Tendolkar-Air 1958 SC 538 | PDF | U.S. State – Scribd, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/379289125/Constitution-Project
64. Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & Others, 1958 – iPleaders, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/shri-ram-krishna-dalmia-vs-shri-justice-s-r-tendolkar-others-1958/
65. case ram krishna dalmia | PDF | Constitution | Separation Of Powers – Scribd, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/839732718/case-ram-krishna-dalmia
66. CASE ANALYSIS OF RAMKRISHNA DALMIA V. JUSTICE TENDOLKAR – Lawful Legal, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawfullegal.in/case-analysis-of-ramkrishna-dalmia-v-justice-tendolkar/
67. RAM KRISHNA DALMIA v. JUSTICE TENDOLKAR, AIR 1958 SC 538 – Law Essentials, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawessential.com/all-blogs/f/ram-krishna-dalmia-v-justice-tendolkar-air-1958-sc-538?blogcategory=Case+Comments
68. What is Intelligible Differentia ? Meaning, Importance & Examples for Indian Law, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://advocateravi.com/what-is-intelligible-differentia/
69. Janhit Abhiyan: Where does it lead us? – Scholarship Repository, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://repository.nls.ac.in/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1240&context=slr
70. CASE COMMENT: JANHIT ABHIYAN V. UNION OF INDIA BY … – ijlra, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.ijlra.com/paper-details.php?isuur=2318
71. CASE COMMENT: JANHIT ABHIYAN V. UNION OF INDIA – The Amikus Qriae, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://theamikusqriae.com/case-comment-janhit-abhiyan-v-union-of-india/
72. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India – The Amikus Qriae, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://theamikusqriae.com/janhit-abhiyan-v-union-of-india-3/
73. Reservation in Promotion: Court in Review – Supreme Court Observer, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/journal/reservation-in-promotion-court-in-review/
74. M. Nagaraj vs Union of India – Drishti Judiciary, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/landmark-judgement/constitution-of-india/m-nagaraj-v-union-of-india-2006-8-scc-212-196
75. affirmative action policies, a direct challenge to … – White Black Legal, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.whiteblacklegal.co.in/details/affirmative-action-policies-a-direct-challenge-to-fundamental-rights-case-comment-on-state-of-madras-v-srimathi-champakam-dorairajan-by—avantika-rathore-lakshav-proch
76. THE STATE OF MADRAS V. SRIMATHI CHAMPAKAM | JudicateMe, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://judicateme.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/THE-STATE-OF-MADRAS-V.-SRIMATHI-CHAMPAKAM_JudicateMe.pdf
77. State of Madras vs Champakam Dorairajan – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/state-of-madras-vs-champakam-dorairajan/
78. A simple note on State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan – Unacademy, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://unacademy.com/content/upsc/study-material/polity/state-of-madras-v-champakam-dorairajan/
79. Case Analysis: Indra Sawhney v. Union Of India AIR 1993 SCC 477. – VidhiNama, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://vidhinama.com/case-analysis-indra-sawhney-v-union-of-india-air-1993-scc-477/
80. Case Summary: M. Nagraj v. Union of India (2006) – Law Kranti, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawkranti.com/d/91-case-summary-m-nagraj-v-union-of-india-2006
81. M Nagaraj vs Union of India – LawBhoomi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawbhoomi.com/m-nagaraj-vs-union-of-india/
82. Reservation in Promotion – Supreme Court Observer, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/cases/jarnail-singh-v-lacchmi-narain-gupta-reservation-in-promotion-case-background/
83. The Case of Jarnail Singh v Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) – Jyoti …, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.jyotijudiciary.com/the-case-of-jarnail-singh-v-lachhmi-narain-gupta-2018/
84. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta – ProBono India, accessed on April 16, 2025, http://probono-india.in/research-paper-detail.php?id=758
85. Plain English Summary of the Judgment – Supreme Court Observer, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.scobserver.in/reports/jarnail-singh-lacchmi-narain-reservation-in-promotion-plain-english-summary-of-the-judgment/
86. JARNAIL SINGH & ORS. V. LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA & ORS. – JudicateMe, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://judicateme.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/JARNAIL-SINGH-ORS.-V.-LACHHMI-NARAIN-GUPTA-ORS._JudicateMe.pdf
87. Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) – iPleaders, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://blog.ipleaders.in/jarnail-singh-vs-lachhmi-narain-gupta-case-study/
88. “Janhit Abhiyan: Where does it lead us?” by Dhruva Gandhi, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://repository.nls.ac.in/slr/vol19/iss1/1/
89. Smt. Maneka Gandhi V Union Of India, AIR 1978 S.C. 597( Judgement Analysis & The Ratio Decidendi Of The Case) – Lawful Legal, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://lawfullegal.in/smt-maneka-gandhi-v-union-of-india-air-1978-s-c-597-judgement-analysis-the-ratio-decidendi-of-the-case/
90. (2017] 9 SCR 797 SHAYARA BANO v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of2016) – Digital Supreme Court Reports, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/admin/judgement_file/judgement_pdf/2017/volume%209/Part%20I/Shayara%20Bano%20%20vs%20%20Union%20Of%20India%20And%20Others1701936024.pdf
91. Manifest Arbitrariness and Plenary Legislation – Bar and Bench, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.barandbench.com/columns/manifest-arbitrariness-and-plenary-legislation
92. Manifest Arbitrariness and the Upholding of Constitutional Democracy: A Comprehensive Analysis of Shayara Bano v. Union Of India – CaseMine, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/manifest-arbitrariness-and-the-upholding-of-constitutional-democracy:-a-comprehensive-analysis-of-shayara-bano-v.-union-of-india/view
93. The Doctrine Of “Manifest Arbitrariness” – A Critique – India Law Journal, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.indialawjournal.org/the-doctrine-of-manifest-arbitrariness.php
94. Symposium – Interpreting Equality Rights in India’s Constitution: the Manifest Arbitrariness Test – IACL-AIDC Blog, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://blog-iacl-aidc.org/blog/2018/9/17/symposium-interpreting-equality-rights-in-indias-constitution-the-manifest-arbitrariness-test
95. Doctrine Of Manifest Arbitrariness Can Be Used To Strike Down Laws: Supreme Court Reiterates In Electoral Bonds Case – Verdictum, accessed on April 16, 2025, https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/supreme-court-association-for-democratic-reforms-and-anr-v-union-of-india-and-ors-manifest-arbitrariness-electoral-bonds-case-1521188