Site navigation

In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), what did the Supreme Court hold about reservation in…

The 1992 majority confined Article 16(4) to initial appointments and allowed existing promotion reservations to continue for five years. Article 16(4A), inserted later,…

Choose your answer

In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), what did the Supreme Court hold about reservation in promotion under Article 16(4) as it then stood?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer B

The 1992 majority confined Article 16(4) to initial appointments and allowed existing promotion reservations to continue for five years. Article 16(4A), inserted later, separately addresses promotion reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Option feedback

Option A

The majority confined the provision to initial appointments.

Option B

The majority excluded promotions under Article 16(4) and allowed existing promotion reservations to continue for five years.

Option C

The judgment gave no OBC-only exception for fresh promotion reservations under this clause.

Option D

Inadequate representation does not convert Article 16(4) into a promotion-quota mandate.

Practice for these exams

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic