Home › CLAT PG › law › constitutional_law_advanced › In Indra Sawhney v Union of India (1992), the Su…
In Indra Sawhney v Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court held that reservations under Article 16(4)
AAre unlimited as long as Parliament so directs
BApply only to women
CAre confined to the executive branch alone
DShould not generally exceed 50% of total seats, and the 'creamy layer' among OBCs must be excluded
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: D. Should not generally exceed 50% of total seats, and the 'creamy layer' among OBCs must be excluded
Indra Sawhney (9-judge bench, the 'Mandal case') set the 50% cap as a rule of caution and held the creamy layer doctrine applies to OBCs. M Nagaraj (2006) and Jarnail Singh (2018) extended creamy layer to SC/ST promotion reservations.
Related questions
Under the doctrine of 'pith and substance', if a law enacted by one legislature INCIDENTALArticle 311(2) provides that a civil servant cannot be dismissed, removed or reduced in raIn M C Mehta v Union of India (1986), the Supreme Court evolved the principle of 'absoluteUnder Article 13(2), any law made by the State 'in contravention' of the Fundamental RightS R Bommai v Union of India (1994) significantly curtailedWhich decision laid down that Article 21's 'procedure established by law' must be just, fa'Prospective overruling' as a constitutional technique was introduced in India inDoctrine of 'colourable legislation' is BEST captured by the maxim