Indra Sawhney vs Union of India

The Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case, a significant legal landmark in India, revolved around reservations for socially and economically backward classes. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the idea of reservations for these disadvantaged groups as a means to achieve social justice.

• Case Name: Indra Sawhney v Union of India
• Citation: AIR 1993 SC 477
• Date of Judgment: 16th November 1992
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Case Type: Public Interest Litigation Appellant Indira Sawhney
• Respondent: Union of India
• Bench: M.H. Kania, M.N. Venkatachaliah, S. Ratnavel Pandian, Dr. T.K. Thommen, A.M.
• Ahmadi, Kuldip Singh, P.B. Sawant, R.M. Sahai, B.J. Reddy
• Referred: Articles 14, 15, 16, 46, 340 and 380 of the Indian Constitution, 1950

Facts of Indra Sawhney vs Union of India

As per Article 340(2) of the Indian Constitution, the Backward Class Commission, also known as the Kaka Kalelkar Commission, was established on January 29, 1953. In its report submitted on March 30, 1955, the commission identified 2,399 castes as socially and economically backward. Regrettably, the government rejected the commission’s recommendations in 1961.

On January 1, 1979, during the Janata Party’s leadership under Prime Minister Morarji Desai, the second backward classes commission, also known as the Mandal Commission, was formed. Sir B.P. Mandal chaired this commission and it was tasked with setting the criteria for reserving jobs in the public sector for socially and economically backward classes (SEBCs).

In its report, which the Mandal Commission delivered in December 1980, it classified 3,746 castes as socially and economically backward. The commission proposed a 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and an additional 10% for opportunities for socially and economically backward classes (SEBCs).

A group of individuals, led by Indira Sawhney, raised concerns about the implementation of the Mandal Commission’s recommendations. They argued that reservations based solely on caste were inconsistent with the principles of equality and non-discrimination. They contended that the reservation policy should be based on economic criteria rather than caste.

Subsequently, this case was brought before a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court. The bench requested additional information from the government about the criteria for the proposed 27% reservation scheme. However, it is said that the Indian government inadequately explained the parameters outlined in the office memorandum.

Issues Raised

The issues raised in Indra Sawhney v Union of India were:

1. Is the reservation policy based on caste constitutionally valid or violating Article 16 of the Constitution of India?

2. Should reservations be determined by quantifiable data on social and educational backwardness?

3. What should be the maximum limit or cap on total reservations in government jobs and educational institutions?

4. Should the “creamy layer” within reserved categories be excluded from availing reservations?

Arguments By Petitioner

The senior counsel for the petitioners in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India raised several key arguments. Firstly, they contested that the recommendations of the Mandal Commission, based on caste, contradicted the idea of secularism and would hinder the rapid development of India. Secondly, they acknowledged the consideration of social, educational and economic factors but emphasised the Commission’s focus on social backwardness linked to caste.

Thirdly, they criticised the use of outdated 1931 census data and called for a new survey for identifying Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Additionally, they claimed that implementing the recommendations would replace merit with mediocrity and lead to demoralisation. They argued that the proposals would revitalise the caste system, divide the nation and create discontent. They invoked the ‘equal protection’ clause and suggested that these changes would hamper administrative efficiency.

Arguments By Respondent

In response to the arguments made by the petitioners, the following points were raised by the respondents in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India:

Firstly, accepting the petitioners’ viewpoint in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India would deny the Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBCs) their legitimate right to benefit from Article 16(4), which is a fundamental right.

Secondly, the claim that the report solely relies on the 1931 census is debunked, as the report incorporates a country-wide socio-educational field survey and 1961 census data, particularly for identifying tribal and indigenous groups.

Thirdly, it is clarified that the 1931 census was not the primary basis for identifying OBCs and systematic caste-wise enumeration was discontinued beyond 1931. Fourthly, the Commission’s use of the 1931 census data aligns with precedents like the “BALARAM CASE.” Fifthly, the Commission’s recommendations consider social, educational and economic backwardness, in accordance with court-established criteria.

Sixthly, the report proposed reserving 52% of Central Government positions for OBCs but recommended 27% due to legal constraints. Seventhly, the Commission’s recommendations aim to provide equal opportunities while addressing historical disadvantages. Eighthly, ‘equal protection’ does not preclude providing substantially equal opportunities to historically disadvantaged groups. Ninthly, the Commission acted within its authority and there is no attempt to rewrite the Constitution.

Judgement

In its ruling, the Supreme Court of India upheld the concept of reservations as a means of achieving social justice and uplifting marginalised sections of society in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India. However, it stressed the importance of balancing the interests of backward classes with the overall welfare of the nation. The judgment clarified that reservations under Article 16(4) should not surpass the 50% limit, as exceeding it could undermine equality and lead to reverse discrimination against deserving candidates.

The court in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India acknowledged that determining backwardness should consider social and educational factors, not just economic criteria. It recommended creating the National Commission for Backward Classes to identify and categorise such classes, emphasising the need for periodic revisions to ensure reservations reach the deserving.

The court ruled in Indra Sawhney v Union of India that the “creamy layer” should be excluded from reservation benefits. It emphasised that reservations should target the truly disadvantaged, who have faced historical social discrimination and lack access to opportunities. Including the creamy layer would defeat affirmative action’s purpose and perpetuate inequalities by aiding the already socially and economically privileged.

Indra Sawhney vs Union of India Summary

The Indra Sawhney vs Union of India, commonly known as the Mandal Commission case, was a landmark legal battle in India. The Supreme Court upheld the concept of reservations for socially and economically backward classes, emphasising their importance in achieving social justice and upliftment. It set a cap of 50% for reservations under Article 16(4) to prevent reverse discrimination.

The court in Indra Sawhney v Union of India recognised that backwardness must consider social and educational factors, not just economic criteria, leading to the recommendation of the National Commission for Backward Classes. It ruled that the “creamy layer” should be excluded from reservations to ensure that affirmative action benefits those who have faced historical discrimination and lack equal opportunities, preventing further inequality.