Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India
| Indra Sawhney v. Union of India | |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Full case name | Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India |
| Decided | 16 November 1992 |
| Citation | AIR 1993 SC 477; 1992 Supp 2 SCR 454 |
| Case history | |
| Subsequent action | See below |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | M.H. Kania (CJ), M. N. Venkatachaliah, S. R. Pandian, Dr. T.K. Thommen, A.M. Ahmadi, Kuldip Singh, P.B. Sawant, R.M. Sahai, B.P. Jeevan Reddy |
| Chief judge | Bibek mandal |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Kania C.J., Venkatachaliah, Ahmadi and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ. |
| Majority | Kania CJ., Venkatachaliah, Pandian, Ahmadi, Sawant and B.P. Jeevan Reddy JJ. |
| Concur/dissent | Pandian J., Sawant J., and Ahmadi J. |
| Dissent | Dr. Thommen J., Singh J., and Sahai J. |
Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India also known as the Mandal verdict was an Indian landmark public interest litigation case delivered by a 9-judge constitution bench.[1][2]
Facts
[edit]The constitution recognized social and educational backwardness, but not economic backwardness. The court upheld separate reservation for OBC in central government jobs, but excluded these to the "creamy layer" (the forward section of a backward class, above a certain income).[3][unreliable source?][4] At no point should the reservation exceed 50%.[5]
The genesis of the debate was in 1980, when the Second Backward Classes Committee, headed by BP Mandal, submitted its report. The report recommended 27 percent reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and 22.5 percent for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes.
The Central government, however, acted on the report a decade later, by issuing an office memorandum (OM), providing 27 percent vacancies for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes to be filled by direct recruitment.
Indra Sawhney, the petitioner in this case, made three principal arguments against the Order:[6][7]
- The extension of reservation violated the Constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity.
- Caste was not a reliable indicator of backwardness.
- The efficiency of public institutions was at risk.
The five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court issued a stay on the operation of the Government Order of 13 August till the final disposal of the case.
Judgement
[edit]On 16 November 1992, the Supreme Court, in its verdict, upheld the government order, being of the opinion that caste was an acceptable indicator of backwardness.[7] Thus, the recommendation of reservations for OBCs in central government services was finally implemented in 1992.[8] The Supreme Court of India gave verdict that 27% central government reservation for OBCs is valid.[4] However, some states denied the existence of the creamy layer, and a report commissioned by the supreme court was implemented. The case was pressed again in 1999 and, in 2006, the supreme court reaffirmed the creamy layer exclusion and extended it to SCs and STs.[1] This judgement also overruled General Manager Southern Railway v. Rangachari and Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India verdicts, which said that reservations could be made in promotions as well as appointments. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India held that reservations cannot be applied in promotions.
1992 Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India judgment laid down the limits of the state's powers: it upheld the ceiling of 50 per cent quotas, emphasized the concept of "social backwardness", and prescribed 11 indicators to ascertain backwardness. The nine-Judge Bench judgement also established the concept of qualitative exclusion, such as "creamy layer".[9][10][11] The creamy layer is only applicable in the case of Other Backward Castes and not applicable on other group like SC or ST. The creamy layer criterion was introduced at Rs 100,000 in 1993, and revised to Rs 250,000 in 2004, Rs 450,000 in 2008, Rs 600,000 in 2013 and 800,000 in 2015.
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ a b "Court, quota and cream". The Indian Express. 20 October 2006. Archived from the original on 13 May 2008. Retrieved 17 November 2011.
- ^ "The Hindu Explains Why does the Supreme Court think the Mandal verdict should be referred to a larger Bench?". The Hindu. 13 March 2021.
- ^ "Indra Sawhney Etc. vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. on 16 November, 1992". IndianKanoon.org. Archived from the original on 17 September 2012. Retrieved 22 August 2012.
(4) Reservation being an extreme form of protective measure or affirmative action it should be confined to a minority of seats. Even though the Constitution does not lay down any specific bar but the constitutional philosophy being against proportional equality the principle of balancing equality ordains reservation, of any manner, not to exceed 50%." , "Reservation in promotion is constitutionally impermissible as once the advantaged and disadvantaged are made equal and are brought in one class or group then any further benefit extended for promotion on the inequality existing prior to being brought in the group would be treating equals unequally. It would not be eradicating the effects of past discrimination but perpetuating it.
- ^ a b Nair, Shalini (18 April 2017). "BJP's OBC pitch: How stronger new backward classes panel will function". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 15 April 2019. Retrieved 28 March 2020.
- ^ Basavaraju, C. (2009). "Reservation Under the Constitution of India: Issues and Perspectives". Journal of the Indian Law Institute. 51 (2): 271. JSTOR 43953443.
- ^ Guha, Ramchandra (2017). India After Gandhi: 10th Anniversary Edition. New Delhi: Picador India. pp. 602–604. ISBN 9789382616979.
- ^ a b "Case analysis of Indira Sawhney v. UOI". Legal Bites - Law And Beyond. 15 September 2016. Retrieved 4 November 2017.
- ^ "20 years after Mandal, less than 12% OBCs in central govt jobs - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 4 November 2017.
- ^ "Explained: Order reserved". 23 March 2015. Retrieved 4 March 2019.
- ^ "For an equitable society, reservations must be extended to private sector". 23 October 2015.
- ^ "Plea to reconsider judgment in Indra Sawhney case of 1992". The Hindu. 23 August 2007. Retrieved 4 March 2019 – via www.thehindu.com.