Indra Sawhney vs Union of India | Law Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

Facts of Indra Sawhney vs Union of India

The Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case was a significant legal landmark in India that focused on reservations for socially and economically backward classes. The Supreme Court upheld reservations for these disadvantaged groups as a way to achieve social justice.

Case Details

• 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

The case revolved around the establishment of reservations for socially and economically backward classes, emphasizing the importance of social justice.

Key Events

• Kaka Kalelkar Commission: Established on January 29, 1953, identified 2,399 castes as socially and economically backward.
• Mandal Commission: Formed on January 1, 1979, proposed a 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes and an additional 10% for SEBCs.
• Concerns Raised: Indira Sawhney and others argued for reservations based on economic criteria rather than caste.
• Supreme Court Intervention: A nine-judge bench requested more information from the government regarding the proposed reservation scheme.

Overall, the case highlighted the complexities of reservation policies and the ongoing quest for equality and social justice in India.

Issues Raised

• Is the reservation policy based on caste constitutionally valid or does it violate Article 16 of the Constitution of India?
• Should reservations be determined by quantifiable data on social and educational backwardness?
• What should be the maximum limit or cap on total reservations in government jobs and educational institutions?
• Should the "creamy layer" within reserved categories be excluded from availing reservations?

Arguments By Petitioner

• Senior counsel for the petitioners in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India presented key arguments challenging the Mandal Commission's recommendations based on caste, citing conflicts with secularism and potential hindrance to India's rapid development.
• They emphasized the Commission's focus on social backwardness associated with caste despite considering social, educational, and economic factors.
• Criticism was directed towards the use of outdated 1931 census data, advocating for a new survey to identify Other Backward Classes (OBCs) accurately.
• Implementation of the recommendations was argued to potentially replace merit with mediocrity, leading to demoralization and revitalization of the caste system.
• Concerns were raised about the nation being divided, discontent being created, and the revival of the caste system if the proposals were enforced.
• The petitioners invoked the 'equal protection' clause, suggesting that such changes could hamper administrative efficiency.

Arguments By Respondent

• Respondents in the case of Indra Sawhney vs Union of India raised several points countering the petitioners' arguments.
• Denying the Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBCs) their rightful benefit from Article 16(4) was highlighted as a fundamental issue.
• The reliance on the 1931 census data was refuted, with clarification that a comprehensive socio-educational field survey and 1961 census data were also considered, especially for identifying tribal and indigenous groups.
• The primary basis for identifying OBCs was not the 1931 census, and systematic caste-wise enumeration ceased after 1931.
• Utilization of 1931 census data by the Commission was justified by precedents like the "BALARAM CASE."
• Recommendations proposed reserving 52% of Central Government positions for OBCs but were adjusted to 27% due to legal limitations.
• The aim of the Commission's recommendations was to ensure equal opportunities while addressing historical disadvantages.
• The concept of "equal protection" was discussed in relation to providing substantially equal opportunities to historically disadvantaged groups.
• The Commission's actions were deemed within its authority without any intent to rewrite the Constitution.

Judgement 

Ruling on Reservations

• The Supreme Court of India supported reservations for social justice.
• Emphasis on balancing the interests of backward classes with national welfare.
• Reservations under Article 16(4) should not exceed 50% to prevent reverse discrimination.

Determination of Backwardness

• Backwardness includes social and educational factors, not just economic status.
• Recommendation to establish the National Commission for Backward Classes.
• Periodic revisions are necessary to ensure deserving candidates benefit from reservations.

Exclusion of Creamy Layer

• Reservations should target the truly disadvantaged.
• The "creamy layer" should be excluded from reservation benefits.
• Avoiding inclusion of the creamy layer prevents perpetuation of inequalities.

Conclusion

• The Indra Sawhney vs Union of India, also known as the Mandal Commission case, was a significant legal dispute in India.
• The Supreme Court's decision upheld the concept of reservations for socially and economically backward classes, highlighting their crucial role in achieving social justice and progress.
• It established a reservation cap of 50% under Article 16(4) to prevent reverse discrimination.
• The court emphasized that backwardness should be assessed based on social and educational factors, not solely on economic criteria.
• This recognition led to the establishment of the National Commission for Backward Classes.
• The concept of the "creamy layer" was introduced to exclude certain privileged individuals from reservations, ensuring that affirmative action benefits those who have historically faced discrimination and lack equal opportunities.
• This measure aimed to prevent further inequality in society.