Ashoka Kumar Thakur v Union of India
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India, 2008
Citation: (2008) 6 SCC 1
Background / Facts:
Ashoka Kumar Thakur challenged the constitutional validity of government policies reserving seats in educational institutions and public employment for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, and related orders by the Government of India.
The challenge was primarily against the 200% reservation policy introduced by the Government, which extended 27% reservation for OBCs in central educational institutions, such as IITs, IIMs, and AIIMS.
The petitioners argued that the reservation policy violated the right to equality (Article 14) and the right to equality of opportunity in public employment (Article 16) under the Constitution. They also contended that the creamy layer within OBCs should be excluded from the benefits.
Constitutional Issues:
Whether the State can provide 27% reservation for OBCs in central educational institutions and public employment?
Whether such reservation violates the constitutional guarantee of equality under Articles 14, 15, and 16?
The extent and criteria of affirmative action (reservation) permissible under the Indian Constitution.
Whether the creamy layer (wealthier sections of OBCs) should be excluded from reservation benefits.
Whether caste-based reservation is justified to achieve social justice.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 27% reservation for OBCs, subject to important conditions:
The Court reaffirmed the validity of affirmative action as a tool to promote social justice and equality.
It held that reservation is not a violation of equality under Article 14 but rather an exception to ensure substantive equality.
The Court emphasized the exclusion of the creamy layer from OBC reservation to ensure benefits reach the socially and educationally backward.
The Court laid down guidelines for identification of the creamy layer, generally excluding those with income above a certain limit or holding high government posts.
It also observed that the reservation should not exceed 50% generally, but the government can exceed this limit under exceptional circumstances.
The Court struck down the 200% reservation scheme as arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The Court reiterated that affirmative action must be based on objective criteria of backwardness and must not be arbitrary or excessive.
Important Legal Principles:
Article 15(4) and 16(4):
These provisions allow the State to make special provisions for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes and to provide reservation in public employment.
Doctrine of Reasonable Classification:
Reservation is a form of reasonable classification to promote equality, which does not violate Article 14.
Creamy Layer Concept:
The wealthier and better-educated sections of OBCs are excluded from reservation benefits to maintain the purpose of affirmative action.
50% Ceiling on Reservation:
The Court recognized a general ceiling of 50% on reservations but allowed exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
Judicial Review:
Affirmative action policies are subject to judicial review to ensure they are based on sound data and objective criteria.
Relevant Case Law Referenced:
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 217 (Mandal Case):
This landmark case laid down the principles on reservation, backwardness, creamy layer exclusion, and the 50% cap on quotas.
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310:
Affirmed the constitutionality of reservation for backward classes.
M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (1963) 1 SCR 477:
Discussed the need for reservation to uplift socially backward classes.
Summary:
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India is a significant judgment affirming the constitutional validity of reservation for OBCs while imposing safeguards such as:
Exclusion of the creamy layer to ensure equitable distribution of benefits.
Maintenance of the 50% reservation ceiling except in exceptional circumstances.
Reservation being a tool for substantive equality, not just formal equality.
Rejection of arbitrary or excessive reservation schemes like the 200% quota.
The judgment balances the need for social justice with constitutional guarantees of equality.
RELATED Blog
0 comments