Indra Sawhney Vs. Union Of India

CASE BRIEF

Petitioner – Indra Sawhney

Respondent – Union Of India

Decided on – 16.11.1992

STATUES REFERRED-

The Constitution of India 1949

1. Article 16(1)
2. Article 16(4)
3. Article 15(4)
4. Article 340

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. In 1979 the government of India was headed by the Former Prime Minister Sri Morarji Desai and the Mandal commission was appointed with context to article 340 of the Constitution of India in order to investigate the conditions of the education and socially backward classes of the society.
2. In 1980 the Mandal commission committee recognised close to 3700 classes as socially and educationally backward classes.
3. The recommendation put forth was for a reservation of 27 percent seats for government jobs for the SCs STs and OBCs.
4. When the recommendation was made the Janta Party lost power and the Congress came into power and the Congress government did not implement the recommendations that were made until 1989.
5. In 1989 the Janta Party came back into power and they tried to implement the recommendations but there were violent protests that took place in the country which caused grave damage to property and led to riots.
6. In 1990 a writ petition was filed which challenged the legitimacy of the office Memoranda. The then Prime Minister, P V Narasimha Rao along with the Janta Party decided to implement the 27% reservation along with an additional 10% reservation for the educationally backward class.
7. A special 9 judge bench was referred to by the five-judge bench to view the importance of the matter and to settle the legal matter related to the reservation.
8. A writ petition was then filed to check the constitutional validity of the order passed in the Supreme Court of India.

ISSUES

1. Whether economy or caste can be the component that constitutes a different class?
2. Whether Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India is an exception to Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India?
3. Whether backward class stated under article 16(4) is similar to socially and educationally backward class as stated under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India?
4. Whether article 16(4) of the Constitution of India allows classification of backward class into Backward classes or Most Backward classes?

CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES

Petitioners Arguments

1. The Petitioners contended that reservation of seats would provoke the evil that exists in the caste system and the evil present would lead to India’s demand to be a Welfare State.
2. The petitioners further contended that it would result in the sub-standard replacing the standard and the reins of power passing from meritocracy to mediocrity which led to two categories- Forward and backward classes which would then lead to conflicts and make backwardness a vested interest in the eyes of the society.
3. The petitioners also contended that the only type of provision that the State can make in favour of the backward classes is the reservation of appointments provided by Clause (4) and that the said clause does not contemplate or permit granting of any exemptions or concessions to the backward classes.
4. The petitioners further stated that  some members of the designated backward classes are highly advanced socially, economically and educationally and putting them in a particular category would thereby benefit them and the truly backward class would miss onto opportunities.(creamy layer)
5. Petitioners also alleged that the Mandal Commission Report was indirectly trying to review the Constitution of India.
6. The petitioner lastly contended for the means test to take place so as to identify the poor section of the society.

Respondents Arguments

1. The respondents contended that the state report only gave the backward classes an opportunity to fulfil their claims.
2. The respondents further contended that the report that was taken into consideration or published was a continuation of the first minorities commission that took place before the Mandal commission was appointed.
3. The respondents also contended that the action that was taken in respect to the report was an indirect action in changing the wrongs to the rights in context to the treatment faced by the backward classes for centuries.
4. The respondents further contended that there would not be any abuse of power as there is enough safeguard present to make sure that there is no misuse of political power.
5. According to the respondents in context of the creamy layer argument that was laid down by the petitioners the respondents observed that the creamy layer argument was put forth as a trick to deprive the backward classes of the benefit of reservations.
6. The respondents lastly contended that the very object and purpose of reservation, intended for the socially backward class would reach only a cul-de-sac and the identified SEBCs would be left in a maze.^[2]

JUDGEMENT

The apex court bench comprising of M Kania, M Venkatachaliah, S R Pandian, . T Ahmadi, K Singh, P Sawant, R Sahai, B J Reddy held the following-

ISSUE 1

1. The case served as a landmark judgement in context to the reservation of seats for the backward classes and the case went on to observe the extent through which Article 16(4) could be used.
2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this judgement observed that article 16(4) cannot be used only for the economically or educationally backward classes of the society and to do so a proper structure should be followed.
3. The court further held that reservation of seats cannot be made on the basis of only backwardness as this does not find any justification in the Constitution of India.
4. The court also stated that the total number of seats for reservation cannot be more than 50% and the absence of a procedure for the classification of backward class is not possible for the courts to ascertain and this authority should be left to the law-making authorities concerned.
5. Article 16(4) is concerned with social backwardness and the court concluded that Article 16(4) lays emphasis to the connection between caste, poverty, social backwardness and poverty.
6. Therefore the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that caste and economy cannot be the only criterion that distinguish socially backward classes or backward classes in the society.

ISSUE 2

1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that Article 16(4) is an extension of Article 16(1).
2. Article 16(1) permits Article 16(4) to be an instance of classification and in the absence of Article 16(4), Article 16(1) could easily make classification of the backward classes.
3. Backward class is that section of the society that has been classified by the Constitution of India under Article 16(4) and special treatment to these backward classes has been mentioned. Therefore, the court observed that there is no need to further classify an already classified class of the society.
4. The court also observed that reservation of jobs for classification of classes can only be made under Clause 1 of Article 16 but the classification of backward classes for job reservations can be made under both Clause (4) and (1).
5. Therefore the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held Article 16(4) is not an exception of Article 16(1) but is an extension of Article 16(1)

ISSUE 3

1. Article 15(4) states socially and educationally backward classes whereas Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India states backward class of citizens.
2. Article 16(4) is contemplated only to social backwardness and backwardness of the class cannot only be identified on the basis of economic criterion.
3. Article 15(4) exclusively states the terms “socially” and “educationally” whereas under Article 16(4) there is no exclusive term that needs to be followed to distinguish backwardness of a class.
4. Therefore the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that backward class stated under article 16(4) is not similar to socially and educationally backward class as stated under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India.

ISSUE 4

1. Division of classes into backward classes or most backward classes should be done by the government through a proper procedure.
2. There were 10% job posts that were put forward but were rejected by this Hon’ble Court as there were no classifications of other economically backward classes under Article 16(4) of the constitution of India.
3. Therefore the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stated that article 16(4) of the Constitution of India allows classification of backward class into Backward classes or Most Backward classes but the decision should be taken by the government under a backing legal law under the Constitution of India.

RULE OF LAW

The provision of the law which was under scrutiny by the Hon’ble apex court of India was the difference between social, economic and educational backwardness class of the society and the reservation policy in India.

OVERRULED JUDGEMENTS

Devadasan V. Union of India^[3]

1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this case overruled the judgement passed in case of Devadasan V. Union of India^[4] which stated the “carry forward” rule.
2. The carry forward rule stated that reserved posts that remained unfilled by the end of one year may be carried forward to the next year.
3. In this case, the Supreme Court of India put a cap on the number of seats and stated that the carry forward rule is subject to the overall limit but the overall reservation any year could not exceed 50% reservation seats.

Rangachari V. The General Manager^[5]

1. The court in Rangachari V. The General Manager^[6] held that reservations could be made in promotions as well as appointments.^[7]
2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this case overruled the judgement passed and stated that it would operate prospectively and it would not be impermissible for the state to extend relaxations.
3. It also held that the promotions provided would extend for a period of five years.

M. R. Balaji And Others vs State Of Mysore^[8]

1. The court in the case of M. R. Balaji And Others vs State Of Mysore^[9] held that backward classes were identified exclusively on the basis of cast.^[10]
2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this case overruled the judgement passed and stated that reservation for other classes can be provided under Article 16(1) on the basis of reasonable classifications.

COURT’S DECISION

1. There would be a reservation of 27% of the jobs to the socially and economically backward classes and preference would be given to the poorer section of the socially and economically backward classes of the society.
2. The Creamy layer was eliminated by the court.
3. The court struck down the 10% reservation provision for the economically backward class among the higher casts.

CONCLUSION

1. The court, in this case, struck a balance between the socially and backward classes of the society and the backward classes.
2. The court removed the economic criterion as the sole criteria to classify the classes of the society.
3. Socially advanced people and creamy layer was excluded from Article 16(4).
4. The case laid the foundation of 16(4) and thereafter two constitutional amendments were incorporated.

Although the court laid down certain rules and clarified certain articles under the Constitution of India which helped in uplifting the backward classes the wrongs done in the past are still to be set right and recently there have been anti- reservation protests taking place to strike down the whole reservation policy in India.

1. (1992) Supp. (3) SCC 217 [2] ↑
2. legitquest.com. https://www.legitquest.com/case/indra-sawhney–others-v-union-of-india–others/2364A. ↑
3. AIR 1964 S.C. 179 ↑
4. ibid. ↑
5. AIR 1962 SC 36 ↑
6. ibid. ↑
7. en.wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_cases_related_to_reservation_in_India. ↑
8. 1963 AIR 649 ↑
9. ibid. ↑
10. mondaq.com. https://www.mondaq.com/india/human-rights/650628/casteism-much-an-analysis-of-indra-sawhney-part-i. ↑