Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992): A Pivotal Judgement on Reservation in India


Author: Vardha Verma, Student at Jindal Global University

The Indira Sawhney v. Union of India case in 1992, commonly known as the “Mandal Commission case,” marks a landmark judgment in the social justice and affirmative action saga of India. Here, the Supreme Court addressed the question of constitutional validity of reservations in public employment while establishing critical parameters to ensure that this balance is made between equality and social justice, the two basic foundations of the Indian Constitution.

The case dates back to the Second Backward Classes Commission, headed by B.P. Mandal in 1979. It was aimed at identifying socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) and recommended 27% reservations in government jobs for them. In 1990, V.P. Singh’s government had implemented the recommendations, which set off a nation-wide protest movement. The policy, it was contended, diluted meritocracy and fairness in public employment. The litigation process brought the case to the Supreme Court where a nine-judge bench was entrusted with its constitutional implications.

The core issue that the case dealt with was whether caste could be a criterion to identify backward classes and if such reservations were against the principle of equality under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. The contention of the petitioners was that the policy of reservation unfairly compromised merit and individual rights. In this regard, supporters argued for the necessity of it in order to redress the historical and systemic disadvantages of marginalised communities.

In a landmark verdict delivered on November 16, 1992, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 27% reservation for SEBCs while simultaneously laying down several key guidelines. First, the Court recognized caste as a legitimate factor in identifying backward classes, but cautioned that it should not be the sole determinant. A more holistic approach considering economic and educational indicators was deemed necessary. This subtle understanding reflected the intent of the Court to ensure that affirmative action policies targeted genuine beneficiaries.

The judgment made one of the most significant contributions by introducing the concept of the “creamy layer.” The Court reasoned that individuals within backward classes who had attained significant socio-economic advancement should be excluded from the benefits of reservation. This measure was taken to prevent the benefits of affirmative action from being cornered by the relatively privileged sections within the marginalized groups. In this way, the judgment tried to ensure that the opportunities were distributed equitably among those who really needed them.

Docket: Another important decision of the judgment dealt with the 50 percent upper limit on reservations in government employment. The Court ruled that such an upper limit was required for the proper balancing of affirmative action and equality. Exceptions for violation of this limit were made only in extreme situations. This principle has since been used as a yardstick in measuring the constitutionality of reservation policies in India.

The Court further clarified that Article 16(4) of the Constitution, providing for reservations in public employment, does not apply to promotions. This judgment has been viewed as a safeguard against excessive reliance on quotas that might undermine efficiency and merit in administrative functions. However, this aspect of the judgment remains a subject of continued debate and subsequent legislative amendments.

The Indira Sawhney judgment emphasized the need for periodic review and monitoring of backward class lists to ensure they reflected changing socio-economic realities. This dynamic approach emphasized the need for policies to adapt to changing circumstances, thus keeping them relevant and effective.

The judgment was welcomed as a progressive decision, but not without criticism. Opponents of reservations argued that the policy compromised the principles of merit and efficiency in public services. The exclusion of promotions from the ambit of reservations was also contested, with some asserting that it limited the upward mobility of disadvantaged groups within the government workforce. Additionally, the implementation of the creamy layer concept has faced challenges, including inconsistencies in identifying and excluding economically advanced individuals within backward classes.

The Indira Sawhney case has significantly impacted the legal and social spheres of India. It set a precedent for the further evolution of affirmative action policies, including the 103rd Constitutional Amendment passed in 2019, which implemented reservations for the economically weaker sections of society. The judgment serves as a landmark to assess the constitutional validity and practical feasibility of reservation policies.

The core of the Indira Sawhney judgment was that reservations were legitimate for achieving social justice. By introducing measures such as the creamy layer exclusion and the 50% cap, the Court tried to ensure that affirmative action policies were equitable and in consonance with constitutional principles. The judgment highlighted the judiciary’s role in mediating complex issues of social justice, merit, and equality, underscoring the enduring challenge of addressing entrenched inequalities in a diverse society like India.

In conclusion, the Indira Sawhney v. Union of India judgment marked a landmark in India’s progress toward a more inclusive and egalitarian society. Its emphasis on balancing social justice with equality of opportunity continues to guide the nation’s efforts to create a level playing field for all its citizens, reflecting the enduring vision of the Indian Constitution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *