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://legalvidhya.com
written by Ajay Kumar intern under legal vidhiya
0 Comments