Judgment Summary I

Full text of this judgement is available here

1. Whether the Ninety-Third Amendment of the Constitution is against the"basic structure" of the Constitution?

The Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2005 does not violate the"basic structure" of the Constitution so far as it relates to thestate maintained institutions and aided educational institutions. Questionwhether the Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2005 would beconstitutionally valid or not so far as "private unaided" educationalinstitutions are concerned, is left open to be decided in an appropriate case.(Paragraph 79)

2. Whether Articles 15(4) and 15(5) are mutually contradictory, henceArticle 15(5) is to be held ultra vires?

Article 15(5) is constitutionally valid and Articles 15(4) and 15(5) are notmutually contradictory. (Paragraph 100)

3. Whether exclusion of minority educational institutions from Article15(5) is violative of Article 14 of Constitution?

Exclusion of minority educational institutions from Article 15(5) is notviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution as the minority educationalinstitutions, by themselves, are a separate class and their rights are protectedby other constitutional provisions. (Paragraph 102)

4. Whether the Constitutional Amendment followed the procedure prescribedunder Article 368 of the Constitution?

The Ninety-Third Amendment of the Constitution does not affect the executivepower of the State under Article 162 of the Constitution and hence, procedureprescribed under Proviso to Article 368(2) is not required to be followed.(Paragraph 103)

5. Whether the Act 5 of 2007 is constitutionally invalid in view ofdefinition of "Backward Class" and whether the identification of such"Backward Class" based on "caste" is constitutionally valid?

Identification of "backward class" is not done solely based oncaste. Other parameters are followed in identifying the backward class.Therefore, Act 5 of 2007 is not invalid for this reason. (Paragraph 142)

6. Whether "Creamy Layer" is to be excluded from SEBCs?

"Creamy Layer" is to be excluded from SEBCs. The identification ofSEBCs will not be complete and without the exclusion of "creamy layer"such identification may not be valid under Article 15(1) of the Constitution.(Paragraph 152)

7. What should be the para-meters for determining the "creamylayer" group?

The parameters contained in the Office Memorandum issued by the Government ofIndia, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department ofPersonnel and Training) on 08.09.1993 may be applied. And the definition of"Other Backward Classes" under Section 2(g) of the Act 5 of 2007should be deemed to mean class or classes of citizens who are socially andeducationally backward, and so determined by the Central Government; and if thedetermination is with reference to caste, then the backward class shall be afterexcluding the creamy layer. (Paragraphs 153 and 155)

8. Whether the "creamy layer" principle is applicable toScheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes?

"Creamy Layer" principle is not applicable to Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes. (Paragraph 163)

9. Whether the principles laid down by the United States Supreme Court foraffirmative action such as "suspect legislation", "strictscrutiny" and "compelling State necessity" are applicable toprinciples of reservation or other affirmative action contemplated under Article15(5) of the Constitution?

The principles laid down by the United States Supreme Court such as"suspect legislation", "strict scrutiny" and"compelling State necessity" are not applicable for challenging thevalidity of Act 5 of 2007 or reservations or other affirmative actioncontemplated under Article 15(5) of the Constitution. (Paragraphs 184)

10. Whether delegation of power to the Union Government to determine as towho shall be the backward class is constitutionally valid?

The delegation of power to the Union Government to determine as to who shallbe the "other backward classes" is not excessive delegation. Suchdelegation is constitutionally valid. (Paragraph 186)

11. Whether the Act is invalid as there is no time limit prescribed forits operation and no periodical review is contemplated?

The Act 5 of 2007 is not invalid for the reason that there is no time limitprescribed for its operation, but a review can be made after a period of 10years. (Paragraph 187)

12. What shall be the educational standard to be prescribed to find outwhether any class is educationally backward? The contention that educationalstandard of matriculation or (10+2) should be the benchmark to find out whetherany class is educationally backward is rejected. (Paragraph 189)

13. Whether the quantum of reservation provided for in the Act is validand whether 27% of seats for SEBC was required to be reserved?

27% of seats for other backward classes is not illegal and the Parliamentmust be deemed to have taken into consideration all relevant circumstances whenfixing the 27% reservation. (Paragraph 193)

These Writ Petitions are disposed off in light of the above findings, and the"Other Backward Classes" defined in Section 2(g) of Act 5 of 2007 isto be read as "Socially and Educationally Backward Classes" other thanScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, determined as 'Other Backward Classes' bythe Central Government and if such determination is with reference to caste, itshall exclude "Creamy Layer" from among such caste. In ContemptPetition (Civil) No. 112/2007 in Writ Petition (C) No. 265/2006, no orders arerequired. It is dismissed.