In Indra Sawhney and others versus the Government of India and others (AIR 1993 SC 477) the Supreme Court (i) has limited the total reservation under article 16(4) to 50 per cent; (ii) has put certain sectors of employment like teaching, medicine and so on outside the purview of reservation; and (iii) has introduced the economic criterion and held that the so-called creamy layer among the backward classes must be excluded from the reservation.

... Apart from these points, there are several other points. But the present Bill addresses itself only to one question of excluding the filling up of the backlog vacancies from the limit of 50 per cent ... This partial response to the legal difficulties has created several other problems This partial response really makes matters worse ... You are accepting, and ... giving Constitution sanctity to this concept of overall 50 per cent limit ... This is a betrayal of the nation.

With the increase in the population, SC proportion must increase. You cannot now increase it because (of the) limit of 50 per cent. So, the aspirations of the Scheduled Castes have not been met.

Then there is the question of giving reservation to the Muslims ... If you have accepted 50 per cent as the outer limit, how will ... you be able to respond to the aspirations of the Muslims for reservation because the present reservations have already reached the limit of 49.5 per cent?

Then there is the question of the economic criterion. It is alien to the Constitution ... Even when the so-called creamy layer is included in the backward class reservation, the quotas are not filled up. Therefore, ... the economic criterion (need) not apply ...

... I request the Government to give fresh thought and see that the various aspects of the reservation receive due attention.