FACTS:
The case of Indira Sawhney & Others v. Union of India (1992) arose out of the contentious issue of reservations in public employment and education in India, particularly concerning the implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations. The Mandal Commission, established in 1979, had identified socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) and recommended a 27% reservation for them in central government jobs and educational institutions. The recommendations were partially implemented in 1990 by the government under Prime Minister V.P. Singh, leading to widespread protests and public unrest. Several petitions were filed, challenging the validity of the policy on grounds that it violated the constitutional guarantee of equality. The petitioners argued that the reservation policy exceeded the 50% ceiling established by earlier precedents and failed to adequately consider economic backwardness. The case was eventually referred to a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, making it one of the most significant cases in Indian constitutional history, as it sought to define the contours of affirmative action and balance the principles of equality and social justice.
ISSUES:
The present case raised key issues regarding the constitutional validity of the Mandal Commission's reservation policy under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Indian Constitution. The court examined whether caste could be a criterion for identifying socially and educationally backward classes, whether economic status alone determined backwardness, and whether the 50% cap on reservations could be exceeded. It also addressed the exclusion of the "creamy layer" from reservation benefits, the extension of reservations to promotions, and the scope of judicial review in social justice policies.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
In this case the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Mandal Commission's recommendations, allowing 27% reservations for socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) in public employment under Article 16(4).
The court reasoned that caste could serve as a legitimate criterion for identifying backward classes, as it is a significant determinant of social and educational disadvantage in India. However, it emphasized the exclusion of the "creamy layer" within backward classes to ensure that the benefits of reservations reach the truly disadvantaged. The court also reaffirmed the 50% cap on reservations, allowing exceptions only in extraordinary circumstances, to preserve the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14. Additionally, the court ruled that reservations could not be extended to promotions, as this would violate the constitutional mandate of efficiency in administration. This landmark judgment sought to balance the principles of social justice and equality, providing a framework for affirmative action policies in India.
ANALYSIS:
The judgment in Indira Sawhney & Others v. Union of India was a landmark in Indian constitutional law, as it clarified the scope and limits of affirmative action policies. By upholding the Mandal Commission's recommendations, the court reinforced the state's commitment to social justice and the upliftment of backward classes, recognizing caste as a key factor in structural inequality. The introduction of the "creamy layer" concept ensured that reservations benefit only the genuinely disadvantaged, promoting fairness within affirmative action. The 50% cap on reservations balanced social justice with the constitutional principle of equality, preventing excessive erosion of merit-based opportunities. This judgment remains significant for defining the contours of reservation policies and addressing the tension between equality of opportunity and the need to correct historical injustices.
info@adhwaitha.com
