Quick answer
Yes. In Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (10 April 2008), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central educational institutions under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006. The Court held that the creamy layer (the socially and economically advanced members of a backward class) must be excluded. It upheld Article 15(5), inserted by the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005, for State-maintained and aided institutions, but left open its validity for private unaided institutions.
The case
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (the name is also written "Ashok"), Supreme Court of India, 10 April 2008, Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, with separate opinions. Petitioners challenged the Ninety-third Amendment and the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (Act 5 of 2007), which reserved 27% of seats for OBCs. The Court upheld both, subject to exclusion of the creamy layer.
Key holdings
These points follow the summary of answers in the lead opinion of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.
- Basic structure: the Ninety-third Amendment does not violate the basic structure so far as it relates to State-maintained and aided educational institutions.
- Private unaided institutions: whether the amendment is valid for "private unaided" institutions was left open for an appropriate case.
- Articles 15(4) and 15(5): they are not mutually contradictory, and Article 15(5) is constitutionally valid.
- Minority institutions: excluding minority educational institutions from Article 15(5) does not violate Article 14, because those institutions receive separate treatment under Article 30.
- Creamy layer: must be excluded from socially and educationally backward classes; without this, identification of backward classes is incomplete. The parameters in the Government of India Office Memorandum of 8 September 1993 may be applied.
- Quantum and review: 27% reservation for OBCs is not illegal; the Act is not invalid for lacking a time limit, but it may be reviewed after 10 years.
- Caste: identification of backward classes was not based solely on caste, so the Act was not invalid on that ground.
Thakur and the later Pramati case
| Point | Ashoka Kumar Thakur (2008) | Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (2014) |
|---|---|---|
| Article 15(5) for State and aided institutions | Valid | Valid |
| Article 15(5) for private unaided institutions | Left open | Valid; does not alter the basic structure |
| Minority institutions | Exclusion upheld | Outside Article 15(5) |
Example
Armaan and Neha both belong to a caste listed as OBC and apply to a central institution. Armaan's family income is above the creamy-layer limit fixed under the government criteria; Neha's is below it. Following Ashoka Kumar Thakur, only Neha can claim a seat in the 27% OBC quota; Armaan competes in the open category.
Current law note
The open question on private unaided institutions was answered in Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (6 May 2014), where a Constitution Bench held that Article 15(5) and Article 21A do not alter the basic structure and are valid. The creamy-layer idea itself comes from the earlier OBC reservation case; see Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.
Exam point
Ashoka Kumar Thakur (2008): 27% OBC reservation in central educational institutions upheld, but only after excluding the creamy layer; Article 15(5) valid for State and aided institutions, with private unaided institutions left to Pramati (2014).
Sources and further reading
- Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (10 April 2008), opinion of K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI, Indian Kanoon
- Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (10 April 2008), opinion of Arijit Pasayat and C.K. Thakker, JJ., Indian Kanoon
- Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (6 May 2014), Indian Kanoon
