Written by- Akanksha Singh
COURSE: BA.LLB( HONS)
Case Analysis: Indra Sawhney v Union of India 1992
Citation: AIR 1993 SC 477, 1992 SUPP 2 SCR 454
Date of judgment: 13 / 12/ 1999
Bench: M.H Kania , MN venkatachalich, S.Ratnaval pandian, T.K Thommen ,A.M Ahmadi , kuldip Singh , P.B sawant, RM sahal , B. Pjeevan Reddy
Appellant: Indra Sawhney
Respondent: Union of India
INTRODUCTION
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India,” commonly known as the Mandal Commission case, is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India in 1992. The case dealt with the reservation of seats for socially and educationally backward classes in public employment andeducational institutions. The court’s decision had a significant impact on the reservation policies and affirmative action in India.
This case revolved around the implementation of reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public services and educational institutions. The Mandal Commission had recommended a 27% reservation for OBCs in central government jobs and institutions of higher education. The Supreme Court’s verdict upheld the concept of reservation but with certain limitations. It ruled that reservations should not exceed 50% and that the creamy layer (relatively better-off members within the reserved categories) should be excluded from benefiting from reservations. The case sparked debates on social justice, caste-based reservations, and the balance between merit and affirmative action. The verdict had a substantial impact on Indian society, politics, and policies, shaping the discourse on reservation and representation for marginalized groups.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The “Indira Sawhney v. Union of India” case emerged from a batch of petitions challenging the implementation of the recommendations made by the Mandal Commission regarding reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public services and educational institutions.
ARGUMENT PRESENT BY PETITIONER
The petitioners argued that providing reservations to certain groups based on caste would violate the principle of equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution. They contended that such reservations would lead to discrimination against individuals belonging to other castes or communities. It was argued that reservations could compromise the quality of education and public services by prioritizing caste over merit. The petitioners believed that candidates should be selected solely based on their qualifications and abilities, rather than their social background. The petitioners contended that exceeding a 50% cap on reservations, as established in previous judgments, would distort the balance between merit and affirmative action, leading to unfair treatment of other sections of society. Some petitioners challenged the adequacy and accuracy of the data used to identify backward classes and determine their level of disadvantage. They raised concerns about the scientific basis of the categorization. The petitioners argued that excessive reservations could result in a reduced number of opportunities for individuals from the general category, leading to a sense of unfairness and imbalance in the allocation of resources and positions.
ARGUMENT PRESENT BY RESPONDENT
The respondents contended that certain castes and communities had historically suffered from social and economic disadvantage. Reservations were seen as a way to rectify these historical injustices and provide opportunities for upward mobility to those who had been marginalized for generations. Reservations were viewed as a mechanism to promote social inclusion and representation of all sections of society in government jobs and educational institutions. The respondents argued that diverse representation in these sectors would lead to a more inclusive and equitable society. The respondents highlighted that the Indian Constitution itself provided for reservations as a means to address social inequalities. Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) of the Constitution explicitly permit the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes. Reservations were seen as a way to ensure diversity and pluralism in various fields, which would contribute to a richer and more representative workforce and student body. This, in turn, would enhance creativity, innovation, and holistic development. The respondents argued that merit was not compromised by reservations. They believed that individuals from backward classes could possess merit and talent, and that reservations provided them an opportunity to showcase their abilities on an equal footing.
ISSUED RAISED
One of the central issues was whether providing reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public services and educational institutions was constitutionally valid. The court had to determine if these reservations were in line with the principles of equality and non-discrimination. The case raised the question of whether caste-based reservations contradicted the principle of equality, as enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The argument was whether giving preferential treatment to certain castes amounted to reverse discrimination against other groups. The case highlighted the tension between merit-based selection and the need for affirmative action to uplift historically disadvantaged groups. The court had to consider whether reservations would compromise the quality and efficiency of public services and institutions. The case addressed the broader issue of social justice and representation for historically marginalized communities. It considered whether reservations were a legitimate means to correct historical disadvantages and provide equal opportunities. The accuracy and adequacy of data used to identify backward classes and determine their socio-economic status were also raised. This included the question of whether the categorization of OBCs was based on a scientific and accurate assessment of their level of disadvantage.
SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
The nine judges constitution bench of the Supreme Court by 6- 3majority gave the judgement .
The court upheld the 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government jobs and educational institutions. It also set a cap of 50% on total reservation, while recognizing the need for exceptional . The case was originated from a series of petitions challenging the implementation of reservations based on the Mandal Commission recommendations. The Mandal Commission had recommended reservations for socially and educationally backward classes, which included Other Backward Classes (OBCs), in government jobs and educational institutions.
The Supreme Court’s judgment upheld the validity of the government’s decision to implement reservations for OBCs but imposed certain conditions. It ruled that reservations should not exceed 50% of the available seats, jobs, or posts. It also held that the “creamy layer” among the OBCs should be excluded from the benefits of reservation. The creamy layer refers to the relatively more affluent and socially advanced individuals within the OBC category who should not get the benefits of reservations.
CONCLUSION
The conclusion of the “Indira Sawhney v. Union of India” case, commonly known as the Mandal Commission case, was that the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public employment and educational institutions. The court’s decision affirmed the principle of affirmative action to address historical disadvantages faced by socially and educationally backward sections of society.
REFERENCE
