Supreme Court Upholds 93rd Amendment and OBC Reservation Act; Excludes Creamy Layer, Calls for Periodic Review.

The SC upheld the validity of the 93rd Amendment concerning state-maintained and aided educational institutions but left its applicability to private unaided institutions open. The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Act, 2006, was deemed valid, provided the creamy layer among OBCs is excluded from reservation benefits. The court affirmed the 27% reservation for OBCs but suggested a review after ten years. It emphasized that caste alone should not determine backwardness and advocated for periodic reviews to ensure reservations remain effective. The petitions were disposed of in line with these conclusions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the 93rd Amendment to the Constitution of India.
2. Validity of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Act, 2006 (Act No. 5 of 2007).
3. Parameters for determining the creamy layer in respect of OBCs.
4. Validity of 27% reservation for OBCs under Act 5 of 2007.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

A. Validity of 93rd Amendment to the Constitution of India:
The judgment concurs with the view that clause (5) of Article 15 is valid concerning state-maintained and aided educational institutions. The court leaves open the question of its constitutionality regarding private unaided educational institutions. It is noted that Article 15(5) does not render Article 15(4) inoperative or ineffective. The judgment emphasizes that clauses (3), (4), and (5) of Article 15 should be read harmoniously and not in conflict with each other.

B. Validity of Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Act, 2006 (Act No.5 of 2007):
The judgment agrees that identifying other backward classes (OBCs) solely based on caste is unconstitutional. It asserts that the failure to exclude the 'creamy layer' from reservation benefits renders the Act unconstitutional. However, the Act is valid if the definition of OBCs is clarified to exclude the creamy layer. Additionally, the judgment supports the view that the Act is not invalid due to the absence of a prescribed time limit for caste-based reservation but suggests a review after ten years to assess changes in circumstances.

C. Parameters for determining the creamy layer in respect of OBCs:
The judgment aligns with the application of the Office Memorandum dated 8.9.1993 of the Government of India for determining the creamy layer among OBCs.

D. Validity of 27% reservation for OBCs under Act 5 of 2007:
The judgment affirms that the 27% reservation for OBCs is not illegal. However, it leaves open the question of whether OBC members who secure admission based on their merit in open competition should be counted against the 27% reserved quota.

Additional Analysis:

Whether Article 15(5) renders Article 15(4) ineffective:
The judgment clarifies that Article 15(4) is not an exception to Article 15(1) but an instance of classification inherent in it. Clauses (3), (4), and (5) of Article 15 operate independently and should be read harmoniously. The opening words "Nothing in this article" in each of these clauses refer to clauses (1) and (2) of Article 15, not to the other enabling clauses.

The need for exclusion of creamy layer:
Section 3 of Act 5 of 2007 mandates a 27% reservation for OBCs in central educational institutions. The term "other backward classes" refers to socially and economically backward classes determined by the central government. The judgment emphasizes that caste cannot be the sole or dominant test for determining backwardness. It reiterates that the creamy layer must be excluded to form a compact class that can be termed as socially and educationally backward. The exclusion of the creamy layer prevents advanced sections from appropriating reservation benefits, ensuring true backward classes receive the intended support.

Implications of caste-based reservations:
The judgment acknowledges the historical divisiveness of caste in India and the necessity of reservations as a temporary measure to uplift socially and educationally backward classes. However, it warns against the prolonged use of reservations, which could perpetuate caste divisions and hinder societal progress. The judgment advocates for periodic reviews of reservation policies to ensure they remain relevant and effective in achieving an egalitarian society.

Conclusion:
The petitions are disposed of in accordance with the views expressed by the learned Chief Justice, affirming the validity of the 93rd Amendment and the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Act, 2006, with the stipulation of excluding the creamy layer and periodic reviews of reservation policies.

---