Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India

Article 15 bars the State from discriminating against citizens on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. It also allows special provisions for backward classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

In 2005, in the P. A. Inamdar case, the Supreme Court held that the State could not impose its reservation policy on private unaided colleges. In response, Parliament passed the Ninety-third Constitutional Amendment and inserted clause (5) into Article 15. This clause allows the State to make special provisions for admission to educational institutions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, S.C. and S.T. It covers private institutions too, whether aided or unaided. Only minority educational institutions under Article 30 were left out.

Relying on this clause, Parliament enacted the Central Educational Institutions Reservation in Admission Act, 2006. Under it, central institutions such as the I.I.T.s, I.I.M.s and central universities gave 15% reservation to S.C., 7.5% to S.T. and 27% to O.B.C. (socially and educationally backward classes). A batch of petitions was filed in the Supreme Court challenging both the Ninety-third Amendment and the 2006 Act.

1. Was the Ninety-third Constitutional Amendment valid?

2. Was it necessary to exclude the creamy layer from among O.B.C. candidates?

3. Had proper parameters for identifying the creamy layer been laid down in law?

4. Was Article 15(5) constitutionally valid?

5. Did excluding minority institutions from Article 15(5) violate Article 14?

6. Was it constitutional to give the government the power to decide who the backward classes are?

Petitioners:

1. Merit: 27% O.B.C. reservation undermines merit. They said admission should be based only on merit, and preferring candidates with lower marks over those with higher marks is itself discrimination.

2. Identification: There were no concrete criteria for properly identifying O.B.C. candidates.

3. Creamy layer: The creamy layer concept applies to both Article 15 and Article 16, so the creamy layer must be excluded. The creamy layer means members of a backward class who have advanced so far, economically and socially, that they no longer need reservation.

The decision was given on 10 April 2008 by a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan.

1. Creamy layer and O.B.C.: The creamy layer must be excluded from O.B.C. If it is not, the identification of backward classes itself goes wrong and O.B.C. reservation would not survive constitutionally. Justice Dalveer Bhandari went further and said that without creamy layer exclusion, the Ninety-third Amendment itself would be ultra vires. The Court did not lay down new, rigid guidelines of its own for identifying the creamy layer. It held that the parameters in the Government of India's Office Memorandum of 8 September 1993 could be applied.

2. S.C. and S.T.: The creamy layer rule applies only to O.B.C., not to S.C. and S.T. The Court reasoned that S.C. and S.T. are separate classes whose identification the Constitution itself carries out through Articles 341 and 342.

3. Minority institutions: Minority institutions form a separate category protected by provisions such as Article 30. Excluding them from Article 15(5) does not violate Article 14.

4. Article 15(4) and 15(5): The two clauses do not contradict each other. Both are valid in their own spheres.

5. Quantum: The 27% O.B.C. reservation is valid. According to the lecture, the Court said it could be reviewed after ten years.

6. Delegation: Giving the Central Government power to decide who counts as O.B.C. is not excessive delegation. It is valid.

7. Private unaided institutions: The majority held that the Ninety-third Amendment does not violate the basic structure for State-maintained and aided institutions. It left open whether the amendment was valid for private unaided institutions, because the 2006 Act applied only to central institutions. Justice Dalveer Bhandari said that imposing reservation on private unaided institutions violates the basic structure, because it restricts the freedom to run an institution under Article 19(1)(g).

Conclusion: The Ninety-third Amendment is valid, at least for State-maintained and aided institutions. Creamy layer exclusion is necessary for O.B.C. Excluding minority institutions does not violate Article 14.

Constitution of India, Article 14; Article 15; Article 15(4); Article 15(5); Article 16; Article 19(1)(g); Article 30; Article 341; Article 342; Ninety-third Constitutional Amendment; Central Educational Institutions Reservation in Admission Act, 2006; Government of India Office Memorandum dated 8 September 1993 (creamy layer parameters)

This is a major case on reservation in higher education and is frequently asked in exams.

1. It upheld Article 15(5) and 27% O.B.C. reservation in central educational institutions.

2. It made creamy layer exclusion compulsory for O.B.C. reservation in education. After the decision, the government implemented O.B.C. reservation in central higher educational institutions with the creamy layer excluded.

3. Students often go wrong on private unaided institutions. The question was left open in 2008 and was settled in 2014 by the Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust case. There, a five-judge bench held Article 15(5) valid for private unaided institutions as well.

4. The S.C./S.T. creamy layer position has changed since then. In Jarnail Singh (2018), the Court applied the creamy layer principle to S.C./S.T. in promotions. In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (1 August 2024), a seven-judge bench, by a 6:1 majority, allowed sub-classification within Scheduled Castes, and four judges said creamy layer identification should apply to S.C./S.T. as well.

Hypothetical: A central university reserves 27% of its seats for O.B.C. candidates under the 2006 Act. Prince and Zoya both belong to an O.B.C. community and apply under the O.B.C. quota.

Prince's family has advanced so far, economically and socially, that it falls within the creamy layer under the applicable parameters. Zoya comes from a poor family of the same community.

Following Ashok Kumar Thakur, the university must exclude Prince from the O.B.C. quota, though he can still compete for general seats. Zoya can claim the reserved seat.

If Farhan, an S.C. candidate from a wealthy family, had applied, the creamy layer exclusion would not have applied to him under the 2008 ruling. Later decisions have, however, moved towards applying it to S.C./S.T. in some contexts.