Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union of India and Others
1992 (3) SCC 217
Case Summary
Facts
In 1990, the V.P. Singh Government decided to implement the Mandal Commission's recommendation, which proposed 27% reservation for OBCs in government jobs and educational institutions. Established in 1979, the Commission aimed to identify and uplift socially and economically backward classes. The move sparked widespread protests and opposition across India, questioning the constitutionality of such reservations. In response, Indra Sawhney, a social activist, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court, challenging the implementation of the recommendations and seeking judicial review of the government's decision, which led to a landmark legal battle on affirmative action.
Issues
1. Constitutionality of Reservation for OBCs: Whether the 27% reservation for OBCs in government jobs and educational institutions is constitutionally valid.
2. Limit on Reservation: Whether the total reservation in any state or central government institution can exceed 50%?
Relevant Articles
Article 14: Right to Equality: This article guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The Court examined whether the reservation policy violated the principle of equality or if it constituted "reasonable classification."
2. Article 15: Prohibition of Discrimination: Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. However, Article 15(4) allows the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) and Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
3. Article 16: Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment:
Article 16(1) and 16(2) ensure equality of opportunity in public employment and prohibit discrimination on specific grounds.
Article 16(4) permits reservations for any backward class of citizens that, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in public services.
Article 16(4-A) (introduced later by the 77th Amendment in 1995 as a result of this case) allowed reservations in promotions for SCs and STs.
4. Article 19: Protection of Certain Rights: Although not central, the case tangentially touched upon Article 19, particularly the balance between individual rights and collective rights under affirmative action policies.
5. Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies: This article was invoked as the petitioners sought judicial review, challenging the constitutional validity of the reservation policy implemented based on the Mandal Commission recommendations.
6. Article 340: Appointment of a Commission to Investigate the Conditions of Backward Classes: This article provides for the establishment of a commission to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes. The Mandal Commission was constituted under this provision.
Judgement
The Supreme Court, in a majority judgment upheld the Mandal Commission recommendations and the decision to provide 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government jobs and educational institutions. It recognized the social and economic backwardness of these communities and their need for affirmative action to ensure equality. The Court emphasized that the total reservation in any educational institution or government job should not exceed 50%. It concluded that reservations should be limited to this ceiling to ensure that the concept of meritocracy is not undermined and that it does not lead to further division in society. The judgment clarified that reservation should be confined to socially and educationally backward classes. The Court also recognized economic criteria for the inclusion of backward classes but did not extend reservation purely on economic grounds.
-Naina Raina
Himachal Pradesh National Law University.
Comments