Latest Articles
Back
The Mandal Verdict: Indra Sawhney and Its Lasting Impact on Social Justice
The Mandal Verdict: Indra Sawhney and Its Lasting Impact on Social Justice
Introduction
The government's decision to impose a 27% quota for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government offices was supported by the Supreme Court in the 1992 case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, also referred to as the Mandal Commission case. This important ruling struck a compromise between the needs of social justice and the equality provided by the Constitution. It acknowledged that to remedy past injustices and societal imbalances, affirmative action was necessary, but it also imposed restrictions to avoid overly high reservations. The verdict highlights the continuous significance of the reservation issue in India and its continued influence on the country's reservation laws. Its influence is still felt today, shaping conversations and laws related to equality and social justice.
Citations
Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India & Others, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217; AIR 1993 SC 477.
{The Supreme Court Cases (SCC) and All India Reporter (AIR) }
The case established several crucial guidelines for reservations in India:-
- One factor for assessing social and educational backwardness is caste.
- Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the entire reservation amount should not exceed 50%.
- The socially advanced individuals who make up the "creamy layer" of the OBCs ought to be denied reservation benefits.
- Promotions should not be covered by reservations; they should only be made for first appointments.
Background of The Case
The Second Backward Classes Commission, led by BP Mandal, delivered its report in the 1980s, which is when the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India lawsuit, also known as the Mandal Commission case, began.
The principal incidents that preceded the lawsuit are:
- To identify the socially and educationally backward classes in India, the Janata Party administration led by Prime Minister Morarji Desai created the Second Backward Classes Commission, sometimes referred to as the Mandal Commission, in 1979.
- In addition to the current 22.5% reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), the Mandal Commission recommended a 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in its 1980 report.
- The administration did not, however, immediately put the proposals into practice. The Office Memorandum granting a 27% quota for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) in civil offices and services under the central government was not released until 1990, under the administration of V.P. Singh.
- The government's decision was contested by petitioner Indra Sawhney, who said that caste was an unreliable predictor of backwardness, that it contradicted the constitutional promise of equality of opportunity, and that it would negatively impact the effectiveness of public institutions.
- The government decision was halted by a five-judge Supreme Court panel until the matter was finally resolved.
- A nine-judge Supreme Court constitution bench heard the petition in 1992 and upheld the government's decision to reserve 27% of positions for OBCs in central government.
A historic ruling in the Indra Sawhney case established several significant guidelines for reservations in India and is still valid today.
The Case and Judgment
The government's decision was contested by petitioner Indra Sawhney, who said that caste was an unreliable predictor of backwardness, that it contradicted the constitutional promise of equality of opportunity, and that it would negatively impact the effectiveness of public institutions. The government decision was halted by a five-judge Supreme Court panel until the matter was finally resolved.
The case was decided by a nine-judge Supreme Court constitution panel in 1992. The verdict's main conclusions were:
- One factor for assessing social and educational backwardness is caste. The court ruled that caste can be used to designate backward classes in addition to other variables like occupation, domicile, and financial status.
- The reservation should not be more than 50% in total. The court stressed that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, the overall reserve should not exceed 50%.
- The benefits of reservations should not apply to the "creamy layer" found inside the OBCs. The administration was ordered by the court to determine who belongs to the "creamy layer" and to remove them from the reservation program.
- Promotions should not be covered by reservations; they should only be made for first appointments. The court decided that reservations should only be made for first appointments and not for advancements.
- The 27% OBC reservation in central government positions was affirmed by the court.
- The ruling acknowledged the need to strike a balance between opportunities for underprivileged groups and merit. The court contended that the goal of granting reservations is to level the playing field for people who have traditionally been marginalized, not to decrease standards.
Effects and Later Developments
The Indian reservation policy was significantly impacted by the Indra Sawhney ruling. As a result, the Mandal Commission's recommendations were put into practice, and OBCs were added to the reservation system.
Nonetheless, others disagreed with the ruling. Some perceived the removal of the "creamy layer" from the reservation benefits as a weakening of the Mandal Commission's initial recommendations.
- The following years saw several Constitutional modifications aimed at reinforcing the reservation policy:-
- Article 16(4A) was inserted into the Constitution by the 77th Constitutional Amendment Act, of 1995, giving the state the authority to provide for reservations in promotions for SCs and STs.
- Article 16(4B) was inserted by the 81st Constitutional Amendment Act, of 2000, enabling the government to treat empty positions for a year as a separate class for reservation purposes.
- An amendment to Article 335 by the 82nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 2000 states that the claims of Scheduled Castes and Tribes (SCs and STs) will not be deemed to violate the efficiency of administration.
- Article 16(4A) was retroactively amended by the 85th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001, to provide SCs and STs significant seniority in promotions.
- In response to concerns that powerful OBC communities are monopolizing a substantial portion of the advantages, the government is thinking about sub-categorizing within OBCs to guarantee a more fair distribution of reservation benefits.
- Many governments have imposed or suggested more reserves, frequently going above the fifty per cent threshold, which has sparked criticism and legal challenges. States such as Tamil Nadu, for example, have adopted reservations up to 69% on the grounds of historical and socio-political need.
- The constitutional validity of these reforms was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the M. Nagaraj v. Union of India case in 2006, but specific guidelines for their implementation were established.
Current Situation
- The Indra Sawhney ruling is still applicable in the current situation. In Indian politics, the subject of reservation—especially for OBCs—remains divisive. The usefulness of the reservation policy, the standards for judging backwardness, and the necessity of routinely reviewing the list of OBCs have all been the subject of continuous discussion.
- Demands to expand reservation to economically disadvantaged upper caste members have surfaced in recent years.
- The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 2019 guaranteed economically disadvantaged members of the upper castes a 10% quota in government positions and educational institutions.
- Nonetheless, the Supreme Court maintained the constitutionality of this change in its 2021 ruling in the Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India case, capping the overall quota at 50% by the Indra Sawhney ruling.
Contemporary Relevance
- The changing nature of socioeconomic situations means that the standards for classifying people as backward must be reviewed regularly. To ensure a more fair distribution of reservation benefits among the most disadvantaged sectors, the government has moved to implement sub-categorization within OBCs.
- There is still a lot of discussion in politics over reserve policies. The 10% EWS quota was introduced in 2019 in response to calls for expanding reservations to economically weaker sections (EWS) inside the general category. While not included in the original Indra Sawhney framework, this quota reflects the changing notion of social fairness.
- Reservation policies are still heavily reliant on the judiciary for interpretation and enforcement. To maintain the fairness and justice of affirmative action, it is crucial to uphold the 50% reservation ceiling and the creamy layer exclusion, as supported by recent rulings.
The application of reservation regulations is not without problems, even with the protections in place. There is a lot of discussion and court action around topics like the correct identification of recipients, possible abuse of the creamy layer criteria, and the suitability of the 50% cap in tackling socioeconomic inequality.
Conclusion
In the annals of Indian reservation history, the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India case continues to be a seminal ruling. It established several significant tenets that now direct the nation's reserve policy. Over the years, the judgment has encountered difficulties and criticism in addition to being commended for its attempts to uphold social justice and equality.
The Indra Sawhney case's tenets will probably continue to influence the conversation on affirmative action and reservations in the years to come as India struggles with the intricate problems of social and economic inequality.
Reference
- SC Pdf:- https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/16589.pdf
- Times of India:- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/unswayed-thoughts/indra-sawhney-and-others-v-s-the-union-of-india-43064/
- The Hindu:- https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ews-quota-does-not-violate-the-50-limit-in-indra-sawhney-judgment-govt/article67634922.ece
- Supreme Court Observer:- https://www.scobserver.in/journal/does-the-50-limit-on-reservations-in-indra-sawhney-hold-good-part-ii/
