Author: Atharv Kulkarni, Shahaji Law College
Abstract
The Indra Sawhney case officially know as ‘Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India’ is a landmark case regarding reservation system in India. The judgment of this case delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 1992 that addressed several critical issues particularly concerning the Other Backward Classes (OBC’s). The Supreme Court affirmed that castes can be a relevant factor for determining backwardness. The Judgment emphasized that reservation should not compromise the quality of public services. The Court established a general cap of 50%. The judgment introduced concept of creamy layer.
Indra Sawhney
Vs.
Union of India
Facts of the cases
In 1953, the backwards Classes commission was setup. The commission was headed by Kaka kelkar therefore the commission was named as Kelkar Commission. In report it was mentioned that 2399 casts as socially and economically backward classes.Central Government didn’t accepted the reports. In 1979, Socially and economically backward classes Commission was set up by Janata Party government at that time Prime Minister was Morarji Desai.The head of the commission was B.P. Mandal. The commission was named as Mandal Commission. It was said to the commission that to identify SEB classes. On 31st December 1980 Commission submitted the report.The report was submitted to the president N.S.Reddy. In this reports 3743 cast identified as SEBC’s. Mandal Commission recommended that these castes (collectively) should get 27% reservation in public services. After sometime Janata party’s government collapsed and recommendation didn’t implemented. In 1989 Janata Party’s government came again in the power and now V.P. Singh was the prime minister. He issued office memorandum to implement the Recommendation of Mandal Commission. General public of India protested against this step of government in all over India. Supreme Court bar association challenged the office Memorandum of government. Supreme Court Bar Association filed petition in the supreme court. The bench was of 5 judges. The bench brought stay on office memorandum till first October 1990.Then the government collapsed in 1991. Congress came into power. P.V.Narsimha Rao became the Prime Minister. The government added 10% reservation for other economically backward population this reservation didn’t include other backward classes due to which reservation increased by 10% and became 37%.
In 1992 journalist Indra Sawhney filed public interest litigation in the Supreme Court she challenged the order of government.
Issues
Article 16(1) states equal opportunity in public employment where Article 16(4) states about reservation in it.
So the issue raised was 1) Whether Article 16(4) is an exception to Article 16(1) or not?
2) Whether classification between backward class and more backward class is valid or not?
3) Whether classification is based on cast or economic basis?
Judgement
The decision was given by bench of 9 judges of Supreme Court. It was given with majority of 6-3
1) The court ruled that, caste system can be used to identify backward classes.
2) Article 16(4) which explains the reservation for backward classes is not an exception to Article 16(1) which states equality of opportunity in public employment matters, it was also clarified.
3) The judgement highlighted that the creamy layer must not include from the benefit of reservation.
4) The judgment also mentioned that if any dispute related for identifying backward classes must be raised before the Supreme Court.
5) The court held that Article 16(4) has allowed classification within backward and more backward classes.
6) The judgement promptly express that identifying backward classes cannot be based on the criteria of economy.
7) The Court stated that reservation should not exceed 50% in public employment.
8) The judgment also emphasizes that reservation is not applicable for promotion in public services.
Review of the Case
1) The Court identified that Article 16(4) is not exception to Article 16(1).
Clause (4) of Article 16 tells us reservation for backward classes specifically, meanwhile, clause (1) can be for reservation to other sections of society.
2) A caste may become a backward class only when it fit in the criteria. Backward classes must be socially backward educational and economic backward classes can not be part of this.
3)The relationship between economic and social backwardness must be linked, reservation can not be given solely based upon economic criteria.
4) According to both the articles reservation should not exceed 50% ordinarily in any public service. For exceeding the limit it requires effective justification.
5) The court allowed classification within the backward classes on social backwardness and not solely on economic criteria, if it is done then the reservation will be illegal.
6) If a subclasses within backward classes advanced or developed socially sufficient to compete with other classes then they should not receive benefits of reservation.
7) Through executive orders provision for reservation can be established.
8) The rule of reservation will not apply in promotion directly, if it is applied then such promotion will be unconstitutional. Such promotion will compromise the administrative efficiency.
9) Backward class could get certain relaxation to help them to compete for merit on the basis of merit and seniority. For this court emphasized that the selection committees should include representation from backward classes in it.
10) Most of the relevant questions regarding this issue were addressed therefore court decided this matter will not be referred back to a larger bench.
11) The court suggested that to classify social groups as backward classes should be done by a new specific committee which should established only for this purpose.
12) The implementation of recommendations of Mandal commission spread the violence in all over India, the court acknowledged this and appealed to public to maintain peace.
13) The court identified that Parts III and I of Indian Constitution dealing with Fundamental rights and duties respectively, were enacted to promote equality and justice hence they are respectively essential.
14) The court referred the Swami Vivekananda’s philosophical thought which condemned any activity or system that restricts freedom of thought of individuals such system should dismissed.
FAQS
Q. How much percentage reservation was recommended by Mandal Commission?
A. Mandal Commission recommended 27% of reservation.
Q. What was the impact of the Indra Sawhney case ?
A. This case had significant impact. This case highlighted the scope and extent of reservation in the government job.
Reference
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1363234/
