## Facts

- A batch of writ petitions challenged the Constitution (Ninety-Third Amendment) Act, 2005, which inserted Article 15(5) authorizing special provisions for admission of socially and educationally backward classes (OBC/SEBC), Scheduled Castes (SC), and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in educational institutions, except minority institutions.
- The petitions also challenged the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, which mandated reservations in central educational institutions: 15% for SC, 7.5% for ST, and 27% for OBC.
- Petitioners argued the amendment and statute violated equality and the basic structure by displacing merit-based admissions and enabling caste-based preferences without adequate criteria.
- Petitioners further contended that the “creamy layer” within OBCs must be excluded and that the identification methodology for backward classes was defective.
- The cases were referred to and decided by a Constitution Bench with multiple concurring opinions.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 15(5) is constitutionally valid or violates the basic structure, including the equality guarantee.
2. Whether OBC reservations in higher education must exclude the “creamy layer,” and who sets the parameters for exclusion.
3. Whether excluding minority educational institutions from Article 15(5) violates equality principles.
4. Whether requiring reservations in unaided private educational institutions impermissibly infringes constitutional freedoms and the basic structure.
5. Whether delegating identification of backward classes to the executive is constitutionally permissible and subject to judicial review.

## Decision

- The Court upheld Article 15(5) as constitutionally valid as an enabling provision for affirmative action in education, consistent with substantive equality and constitutional commitments to social justice.
- The Court held that OBC reservations must exclude the creamy layer; failure to do so would render the scheme constitutionally invalid.
- The Court sustained the CEI Act, 2006 in principle, subject to compliance with the creamy-layer exclusion and constitutional limits.
- The Court held that minority educational institutions are a distinct constitutionally protected class, and their exclusion from Article 15(5) does not violate equality.
- The Court construed Article 15(5) to avoid unconstitutional intrusion on unaided private institutions’ rights, indicating compulsory reservation in unaided institutions would imperil constitutional freedoms under the basic structure.
- The Court upheld executive identification of backward classes, subject to constitutional standards, rationality, and judicial review.

## Legal Principles

- Equality permits affirmative action aimed at substantive equality; reservations in education can be constitutionally permissible when designed within constitutional constraints.
- Article 15(5) is an enabling provision for educational affirmative action for SEBC/OBC, SC, and ST, and is not per se destructive of the basic structure.
- OBC reservation schemes must exclude the creamy layer to ensure benefits reach genuinely disadvantaged groups; criteria are set by government but remain reviewable for constitutional compliance.
- Minority educational institutions may be treated differently because of distinct constitutional protections; their exclusion from reservation obligations under Article 15(5) is not discriminatory.
- Constitutional interpretation may limit the reach of a provision to prevent outcomes that would violate fundamental freedoms and the basic structure, including protections related to private unaided institutions.
- Delegation to the executive to identify backward classes is valid if exercised on a rational, evidence-based basis consistent with constitutional requirements and subject to judicial scrutiny.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained the constitutional framework for reservations in admissions to central educational institutions under Article 15(5) and the CEI Act, while making creamy-layer exclusion mandatory for OBC benefits, upholding the distinct status of minority institutions, and limiting the provision’s application to avoid unconstitutional burdens on unaided private institutions.


Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, (2008) 6 S.C.C. 1 (India 2008)