The Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney and others vs. Union of India and others (AIR, 1993
      SC 477) on 16th November 1992 ruled that the total reservations under Article 16(4) should not
      exceed 50 per cent.
           The Tamilnadu Government enacted a legislation, namely, Tamilnadu Backward Classes,
      Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institution and of
      appointments or posts in the Services under the State) Bill, 1993 and forwarded it to the
      Government of India for consideration of the President of India in terms of Article 31-C of the
      Constitution. The Government of India supported the provision of the State legislation by giving
      the President’s assent to the Tamilnadu Bill. As a corollary to this decision, it was necessary that
      the Tamilnadu Act 45 of 1994 was brought within the purview of the Ninth Schedule to the
      Constitution so that it could get protection under Article 31B of the Constitution with regard to
      the judicial review.
      77.       The Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995—The Schedule Castes and
      the scheduled tribes have been enjoying the facility of reservation in promotion since 1955. The
      Supreme Court in its judgement dated 16th November 1992 in the case of Indira Sawhney and
      others vs. Union of India and others, however, observed that reservation of appointments or posts
      under Article 16(4) of the Constitution is confined to initial appointment and cannot extend to
      reservation in the matter of promotion. This ruling of the Supreme Court will adversely affect the
      interests of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Since the representation of the
      Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in services in the States have not reached the
      required level, it is necessary to continue the existing dispensation of providing reservation in
      promotion in the case of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. In view of the
      commitment of the Government to protect the interests of the Scheduled Castes and the
      Scheduled Tribes, the Government have decided to continue the existing policy of reservation in
      promotion for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. To carry out this, it was necessary
      to amend Article 16 of the Constitution by inserting a new clause (4A) in the said Article to
      provide for reservation in promotion for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
      78.        The Constitution (Seventy-eighth Amendment) Act, 1995—Article 31B of the
      Constitution confers on the enactments included in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution
      immunity from legal challenge on the ground that they violate the fundamental rights enshrined
      in Part III of the Constitution. The Schedule consists of list of laws enacted by various State
      Governments and Central Government which, inter alia, affect rights and interest in property
      including land.
           In the past, whenever, it was found that progressive legislation conceived in the interest of
      the public was imperilled by litigation, recourse was taken to the Ninth Schedule. Accordingly,
      several State enactments relating to land reforms and ceiling on agricultural land holdings have
      already been included in the Ninth Schedule. Since, the Government is committed to give
      importance to land reforms, it was decided to include land reform laws in the Ninth Schedule so
      that they are not challenged before the courts. The State Governments of Bihar, Karnataka,
      Kerala, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamilnadu and West Bengal had suggested the inclusion of some of
      their Acts relating to land reforms in the Ninth Schedule.
           Since the amendment to Acts which are already placed in the Ninth Schedule are not
      automatically immunised from legal challenge, a number of amending Acts along with a few
      principal Acts have been included in the Ninth Schedule so as to ensure that implementation of
      these Acts is not adversely affected by litigation.