Author : Suman College,Army Law College, Pune
Introduction
Article 14 of the Constitution of India ensures that everyone can get equal treatment, and it prohibits unfair treatment. Article 15 and 16 of the 1973 constitution ban discriminations such as on religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth. These protections are however disputed always when the government brings in a policy to assist ill-favored groups like the affirmative action that involves reservations or quota in education and employment. Critics claim that such policies would be opposed to the constitutional right to equality and this scenario makes the Mandal Commission case to be regarded as a breakpoint.
The issue of constitutional validity of 27 percent reservation of the Other Backward Class (OBCs), in the government jobs was examined by the Supreme Court in 1992. The affirmative action or reservation policy was validated by the court, and thereby the government was given the authority to foster social justice through affirmative action, but that there were restrictions to the extent of affirmative action. The decision made it clear that reservations must be driven by certain social disadvantages, and shall not be in contravention of fundamental rights enshrined under Constitution. It clarified regulations on the Article 16(4), which enables the state to provide special consideration to the backward classes in employment in the government service.
The Mandal case supported once again a premise where equality does not imply that we have to treat all people in an identical manner but take notice on various starting points and give assistance where it is most required. It also dealt with fears on reverse discrimination by putting restrictions on reservation usage and locations.
Background : the genesis of the mandal commission
Following independence of India, the government formulated several policies to uplift Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) who were discriminated and did not have a lot of access to resources. The government, however, did not make much effort in the causes of the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) who suffered because the term could not be described easily and political arguments dominated the field. In 1979, the Second Backward Classes Commission (popularly known as the Mandal Commission), which was appointed by the then Prime Minister, Morarji Desai to report indicators of OBCs and also suggest certain policies which can uplift them. The commission also did a lot of research and surveys where some of the communities were categorized as being socially and educationally backward and they qualify to such affirmative action. The OBCs were to be provided with the reservation of 27 percent government jobs and admission in the government institutional are of education and the further reservation of the government job and admission in the institutions of education should be allotted to the OBCs which approximately is 49.5 percent in India according to the commission.
But the commission was not implemented instantly due to obstacles that were hurled contrary to strenuous protesting and litigation that cast the doubt of constitutionality of the reservations. The implementation of the Mandal Commission came as a significant twist in the Indian policy making, which was committed to improving the social security net and concern over centuries of inequality of different communities. Nevertheless, despite the controversies, the decision to allocate a sizeable fraction of government employment and education seats to the OBCs was an indication of how India wanted to move in the direction of making sure it gives more inclusiveness and everyone was given an equal opportunity.
Issue raised :
The case raised several constitutional questions:
Whether Article 16(4) is an exception to Article 16(1) or a facet of equality itself?
Can backward classes be identified solely based on caste?
Is the 27% reservation for OBCs constitutionally valid?
Does the 50% limit on reservations have constitutional validity?
Can economic criteria be used as a basis for reservation?
Is there a need to exclude the “creamy layer” among OBCs?
Petitioner argument
The petitioner argued that :
Article 16(4) was considered punitively (in the narrow sense) Caste based reservations are not permitted in its words. The use of language did not play to such measures. Rather it implies a narrow meaning which must not encompass caste as a leading ground to affirmative action. This meaning is significant since the introduction of caste would expand the context in a manner that does not align with the intentions. The meaning of this should not be expanded by the courts and policy makers.
The reservation policies must also be based on economic disadvantage and not on a caste. Economic backwardness is one of them which is not mistaken and cannot be measured. It is all about the financial problems of individuals irrespective of the caste they belong. In this process, all poor individuals are treated equally without discrimination to their caste names. It will enhance equity since it will cover people who are actually needy, depending on the poverty level. Social justice based on economic standards is more suitable according to most analysts. It makes sure that these resources benefit the most deprived ones, not necessarily a caste group. The Mandal Commission of 1979 was extremely flawed in the methodology that they used. It did not come up with strong evidence behind its arguments. The commission used old information and assumptions that could not be verified. Strict research or accurate surveys were found lacking to determine who were the real members of backward classes. It was more perceptions-oriented rather than data-driven. This made its conclusions be referred to as unjustified by many. It was criticized as it discriminated against some castes without any justifiable evidence of their backwardness socially or economically. This shaky premise gave rise to concerns on fairness and lawfulness of the policies based upon them.
The reservations merely on the basis of caste are against the principle of equality that the constitution provides. The thing is that all of us should be considered equal and the background should be disregarded. In case reservations are given in favor of certain castes, this may divide and instill anger. It begs the issue of merit and fairness, as well. In case race or caste identification becomes the dominant criteria then it might pass up the most competent individuals. This kind of policy will be encouraging mediocrity rather than excellence. They also destroy the notion that one is expected to be successful based on their ability and hard work rather than the location he or she is born. Generally, caste-based quota does not withhold the spirit of meritocracy and equal opportunity. They become more likely to bring inequality, on the contrary to decreasing inequality.
Argument of the Respondent (UOI)
The union government contend that :
In India, caste is still a big indication of social and educational backwardness. It has played a long-time part in shaping the opportunities and access to resources and many dimensions of everyday life. Individuals in lower castes are usually discriminated and are not included and this hinders chances of obtaining quality education and stable employment. This is the truth that is present in most cities and other rural settlements where customary caste division still prevails. This in its turn keeps them lagging their upper-caste counterparts in academics and society. The inequalities caused by caste are very deep-set and persistent and it is hence evident that caste is one of the most striking factors in reflecting social and educational progress or the absence of progress in India.
Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution is one such instrument that can be utilized to tackle such inequalities. It is one of the enabling provisions that the government may offer reservations, also known as the affirmative action, in the form of a specific group that is poorly represented in terms of government services and educational institutions. This provision allows the government to establish policies that should serve to equal the playing field. It acknowledges that some of the groups have been considered on the fringe and require some form of special assistance to integrate fully in the society. By means of reservation, the disadvantaged communities are able to obtain enhanced access to opportunities that are capable of forcing them out of social and educational backwardness. This law has been vital in formulating policies that would end the cycle of deprivation of caste and class.
Introduction of Mandal Commission suggestion was a big step towards social justice of India. The Mandal Commission was constituted in the year 1979 to find out the socially and educationally backward classes and to suggest changes and amendments to the situation. In its proposal it reserved 27 percent of the jobs in the central government services to Other Backward Classes (OBCs). This action was regarded as a necessary step towards bringing historical inequities into the right and encouraging equal representation. The implementation of these suggestions in the early 90s elicited a national debate. Some critics thought it could jeopardize merit and others claimed that it was a just method of resolving centuries-old inequalities.
The coming into effect of findings of the Mandal Commission was a turning point. It sought to enable better social mobility among backward castes and classes that usually were ignored or relegated. Evidence indicates that such changes were useful in keeping up the figure of OBC students in higher education and government employment. Throughout history, it has offered more opportunities to the long-term excluded communities in terms of their social and education. The good move that the government could have made is to endorse the Mandal recommendations in a bid to safeguard social justice. It aimed at helping those on the margin and giving them a sense of empowerment with promises of more equal and inclusive society. This step was essential in creating an equal future in which the castes and classes are not defining the fate of an individual.
Judgement
By the majority of 6:3 .The majority led by J. B.P Jeevan Reddy, A.M. Ahmadi , M.H. Kania, P.B. Sawant , S. Ratnavel Pandian , and Kuldip Singh delivered a nuanced judgement.
The Indian Supreme Court has experimented with the favorable role of reservation and has recommended the policies which need to be out of reservation provisions of the people who have attained social, economic or educational superior status. This decision, predictably analyzing the constitutional provisions, social realities, and previous court precedence’s, tries to bring some light on the gray issues of reservation policies in India. The Court before concluding said that Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution is yet another sharp instrument in ensuring fair representation of backward classes and deal with the historical injustices and social inequality. Another concept was what the Court emphasized, which was in addition to the need to realistically bring fairness in a way that serves the society at large and not necessarily all people receiving equal treatment.
The Court further reflected in the social and educational backwardness which is often in terms of caste, but that has to be related to quantitative variables such as social status, literacy rate, income and opportunities. The Court cautioned against general or unreasonable classifications that may reach out to collectives that are no longer social and educational backward and the need to perform a reasonable, data-based evaluation of every situation.
Members of the backward classes who have gained a higher social, economic or academic status are now known as the creamy layer and this concept of the creamy layer has come to be a key concept in the affirmative action policies. This idea is geared towards ensuring that benefits of reservation are not realized by those who have already made head way socially and economically. Supreme Court of India has held that reservations could not be on just economic ground but on basis of social and educational indicators on which reservations were to be based. Based on the M.R. Balaji v. Bill in 1963, the ruling was arrived at. To avoid the idea of a dilution of merit by giving reservations in large numbers and to have a balance between the reservations and the open competition a maximum limit of 50 percent of the total number of resurrections in the public employment was settled as per the state of Mysore decision. The court made it clear that such an increased limit has the possibility of endangering equality and meritocracy, unless there are some exceptional circumstances justifying the breach of this provision. It was also explained in the ruling that a reservation is possible at the beginning stage of appointment and not in promotions within the same service. It also disapproved the idea that a reservation can be done on the basis of economic factors alone and people in high social echelons do not need special affirmative action. The case urges affirmative action as the means of social justice yet within the boundaries of the constitution so as to uphold equality.
Criticism and debates:
Caste vs Class Dilemma: Critics also suggest that the persistence in using caste also strengthens caste disadvantaged identities rather than reducing them arguing that the Indian society is in a more divided state.
Economic Criteria: The refutation of the economic standards as an independent foundation has been problematic. This debate has been rekindled by the introduction of 10 percent reservation to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) through the 103rd Amendment.
Implementation of Creamy Layer: In spite of the guidance by the Court, the application of the creamy layer exclusion has been irregular and politically faulty.
Conclusion
The Indra Sawhney case judgement is not merely a judgement on reservation but it’s also on the constitutional morality of India. It acknowledges that a purely formal equality is inadequate in a society that remains furiously split by caste and privilege. The ruling gave a foundation to the framework of affirmative action but imposed constraints on the framework by the constitution to curb the misuse. The supreme court once again clarified that the constitution in present circumstances needs a shift to suit equity, fairness and dignity which are the main values on which the republic is founded. Indra Sawhney judgment therefore remains the foundation of the affirmative action in India on jurisprudence. It established the doctrinal basis of reservation where there is equilibrium between personal merit and group disadvantages.
FAQs
What was the case of Indra Sawhney?
The case fought the reservation of the Mandal Commission report, according to which other backward classes (OBCs) would be entitled to 27 percent reservation in Central Government jobs. It was claimed by the petitioners that it was an infringement of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
What was the judgement that was given by Supreme Court in this case ?
Supreme Court maintained the constitutional validity of OBC reservation of 27 percent, but came up with many restrictions and clarifications about that, including exclusion of creamy layer and a limit to maximum reservation to 50 percent.
