Indra Sawhney V/S Union of India AND ORS,AIR 1993 SC 477

Indra Sawhney V/S Union of India AND ORS,AIR 1993 SC 477 

Citation	AIR 1993 SC 477
Date of Judgment	16 November 1992
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case Type	Civil Writ petition 930 of 1990
Appellant	Indra Sawhney
Respondent	Union of India
Bench	• Justice M Kania • Justice B.P Jeevan Reddy • Justice A.M Ahmadi • Justice Venkatachallah • Justice S.R Pandian • Justice P Sawant • Justice R Sahai  • Justice T.K Thommen
Referred	The Indian constitution, Article 14, Article 340 , Article 15(4), Article 16(4)&(1)

INTRODUCTION  

The case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, popularly known as the Mandal Commission case, holds significant importance in  the realm of affirmative action and reservation policies in India. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of India and resulted  in a landmark judgment in 1992. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The case of Indra Sawhney vs Union of India, also known as the Mandal Commission  case, was brought before the Supreme Court of India. 

2. The Mandal Commission, officially known as the Second Backward Classes  Commission, was established by the Government of India in 1979 to investigate the  social and educational conditions of the socially and educationally backward classes. 

3. The Commission submitted its report in 1980, recommending reservation of seats in  educational institutions and government jobs for Other Backward Classes (OBCs). 4. The Government of India, based on the Commission’s report, implemented a 27% quota  for OBCs in government jobs and educational institutions through the Mandal  Commission’s recommendations. 

5. Various petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of the reservation policy,  alleging that it violated the principles of equality and the basic structure of the Indian  Constitution. 

ISSUES 

• Constitutionality of Reservation Policies, 

• Affirmative Action and Social Justice, 

• Quantifiable vs Non-quantifiable Data, 

• Limitations on Reservation, 

Role of Women and Other Marginalized Groups. 

ARGUMENTS  

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment, agreed that reservations for  socially and educationally backward classes were constitutionally valid. 

1. The Court held that reservation policies should not exceed the limit of 50%  set by the previous Supreme Court judgment in the case of Indira Sawhney  vs Union of India (1992).

2. The Court also recognized that reservations were meant to be temporary  measures to uplift socially and educationally backward classes and promote  social equality. 

3. It was agreed that the creamy layer, referring to the relatively well-off  members of the backward classes, should be excluded from the reservation  benefits to ensure that the benefits reach the truly needy. 

JUDGEMENT 

1. The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered on November 16, 1992, upheld the  constitutionality of the reservation policy but set certain limitations. 

2. The Court held that reservations should not exceed 50% of the available seats or  positions. 

3. The creamy layer concept was introduced, excluding the socially and educationally  advanced members of the backward classes from reservation benefits. 

4. The Court clarified that reservations should be based on the overall representation of  backward classes in society and should not solely depend on quantifiable data. 

5. The Court also emphasized the importance of providing reservations to women,  scheduled castes, and scheduled tribes, recognizing their historical disadvantage. 

6. The judgment emphasized the need for the periodic review of the reservation policy to  ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness. 

7. The judgment did not support the inclusion of a creamy layer criterion for scheduled  castes and scheduled tribes, as their backwardness was seen as rooted in the caste system. 

CONCLUSION 

The Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case provided important guidelines for the  implementation of reservation policies in India. It upheld the constitutional validity of  reservations but introduced limitations, such as the 50% cap and the exclusion of the creamy  layer. The case highlighted the objective of uplifting socially and educationally backward classes 

while also considering the interests of other disadvantaged groups. The judgment has been  significant in shaping the affirmative action policies in India and continues to be relevant in  ongoing discussions surrounding reservation policies. 

REFERENCES 

https://indiankanoon.org

https://ww.scconline.com

https://legalvidhya.com

written by Ajay Kumar intern under legal vidhiya