RAS question
In the Indra Sawhney case (1992), the Supreme Court held that total reservations under Article 16 should not exceed:
Correct answer: (D) 50%.
In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that total reservation under Article 16 should ordinarily not exceed 50%.
Explanation
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, the Mandal Commission case, was decided by a nine-judge Constitution Bench in 1992. The rule tested here is the 50% ceiling on reservations: total reservation should not exceed 50%, though the Court recognised that exceptional and extraordinary circumstances may justify crossing that line. The Supreme Court judgment in Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister & Ors. confirms both parts of the principle, stating that the limit of reservation should not exceed 50% and linking the exception to exceptional circumstances and extraordinary situations. That is why 50%, not a higher percentage or an unlimited model, is the answer. The 103rd Amendment's 10% EWS quota takes reservation beyond the 50% ceiling.
Why the other options are wrong
- (A) 60% is wrong because the Indra Sawhney rule fixes the ordinary ceiling at 50%, with only exceptional circumstances allowing a breach.
- (B) There is an upper limit: the Supreme Court explicitly treated 50% as the ceiling for total reservation, subject to limited exceptional situations.
- (C) 70% is wrong because it goes beyond the 50% ceiling laid down in Indra Sawhney without being the stated constitutional rule.
Concept
This tests Article 16 reservation doctrine, especially the ceiling limit and its exception under equality jurisprudence. It recurs in RAS because reservation policy, Mandal-era case law, and constitutional amendments are central to Indian polity questions.