Background and Context
The case law of Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India that dealt with the issue of reservations in government jobs and educational institutions. This case, popularly known as the Mandal Commission case, is significant as it addressed the complex questions related to affirmative action, social justice, and the criteria for determining backward classes.
Mandal Commission and Its Recommendations
In 1979, the Indian government, led by Prime Minister Morarji Desai, appointed the Second Backward Classes Commission under the chairmanship of B.P. Mandal to identify the socially or educationally backward classes of India and recommend measures for their advancement. The Mandal Commission submitted its report in 1980, recommending that 27% of government jobs and seats in educational institutions be reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in addition to the existing 22.5% reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
Government Action and Public Response
The implementation of the Mandal Commission\’s recommendations was announced by Prime Minister V.P. Singh in 1990, leading to widespread protests and debates across the country. The issue of reservations became a highly contentious topic, with arguments both in favor of and against the policy.
Petitioners and Arguments
The petitioners, including Indra Sawhney, challenged the government\’s decision to implement the Mandal Commission\’s recommendations. They argued that the reservation policy violated the fundamental right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. They contended that the criteria for determining backward classes were flawed and that the policy of reservation should not exceed 50% of the available seats or positions.
Issues Before the Court
The Supreme Court had to address several critical issues:
- The constitutional validity of the reservation policy for OBCs.
- The criteria for identifying backward classes.
- The extent to which reservations could be made in government jobs and educational institutions.
- Whether economic criteria could be considered for identifying backward classes.
- The need for periodic review of the reservation policy.
Supreme Court\’s Judgment
The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered on November 16, 1992, upheld the constitutional validity of the reservation policy but introduced several important limitations and guidelines. The judgment was delivered by a nine-judge bench, with a 6-3 majority.
Constitutional Validity
The Court upheld the reservation policy for OBCs, stating that it was a necessary measure to ensure social and educational advancement of the backward classes and promote equality.
Criteria for Identifying Backward Classes
The Court emphasized the importance of using social and educational criteria, rather than solely economic criteria, for identifying backward classes. It ruled that caste could be a factor in identifying backward classes but should not be the sole criterion.
50% Cap on Reservations
One of the significant aspects of the judgment was the imposition of a 50% cap on the total reservations in government jobs and educational institutions. The Court held that reservations should not exceed 50% except in extraordinary circumstances.
Exclusion of Creamy Layer
The Court introduced the concept of the \”creamy layer,\” which refers to the more affluent and better-educated members of the backward classes. It ruled that the creamy layer should be excluded from the benefits of reservations to ensure that the benefits reached the truly disadvantaged sections.
Periodic Review
The Court mandated that the reservation policy should be subject to periodic review to assess its impact and ensure that it continued to serve its intended purpose.
Impact and Significance
The judgment in Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India has had a profound impact on the policy of reservations in India. By upholding the policy while introducing crucial limitations and guidelines, the Supreme Court sought to balance the goals of social justice and equality. The concept of the creamy layer and the 50% cap on reservations have become essential principles in the implementation of affirmative action policies in India.
Conclusion – Mandal Commission & The Indra Sawhney case Law
The Indra Sawhney caselaw is a landmark in Indian constitutional law, addressing the complexities of affirmative action and social justice. The Supreme Court\’s judgment provided a nuanced approach to reservations, ensuring that the policy served its intended purpose without compromising the principles of equality. This judgment continues to influence the discourse on affirmative action and social justice in India.
🎓🚀 Hey, Attention law students!
Ready to level up your game?
Say goodbye to missed opportunities
Get instant updates on internships, jobs, and law Competitions.
Join our vibrant legal community with 5000+ members already onboard!
Click here for WhatsApp Groups (Click HERE) and Telegram Channel (Click HERE). and get timely updates.
Don’t wait, join the coolest legal crew now! 📲🌟
Discover more from Lawfer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.