The Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case, also known as the Mandal Commission case, was a landmark case in the history of the Indian judiciary. The case, heard by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, dealt with the issue of reservation in government jobs and education for the socially and economically backward classes of Indian society, also known as Other Backward Classes (OBCs). The judgment, in this case, has had far-reaching implications for Indian society and polity.

Background and facts

The Mandal Commission, formally known as the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Commission, was set up by the Indian government in 1979 to identify socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) in India and make recommendations for their advancement. In 1980, the Commission submitted its report to the government, recommending that 27% of all government jobs and seats in educational institutions be reserved for SEBCs. This recommendation was implemented in 1990 by then Prime Minister V.P. Singh, leading to protests and agitation across the country.

The implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations in 1990 was met with widespread protests and opposition, particularly from upper-caste communities, who argued that it violated the principle of meritocracy and was unconstitutional. The government defended the policy, arguing that it was necessary to provide opportunities to historically marginalized communities and to address the historical injustices of caste discrimination. Several petitions were filed in various high courts challenging the implementation of the reservation policy for OBCs, and eventually, the matter reached the Supreme Court. The apex court, in its judgment in the Indra Sawhney vs Union of India case, addressed several issues related to reservation and its implementation.

The case was first heard by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in 1992, which delivered a split verdict.

Procedural History

The procedural history of the case can be divided into the following stages:

The Mandal Commission Report: In 1979, the Mandal Commission was constituted by the Government of India to identify the socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) in the country and recommend measures for their upliftment. In 1980, the Commission submitted its report, which recommended that 27% of government jobs and seats in educational institutions be reserved for SEBCs.

Implementation of the Mandal Commission Report: The implementation of the Mandal Commission Report was challenged in various courts across the country. In 1990, the government issued an office memorandum implementing the recommendations of the Commission. This led to widespread protests and agitation by various groups, including students and job seekers.

The Indra Sawhney Case: In 1992, a group of petitioners led by Indra Sawhney, a former civil servant, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the implementation of the Mandal Commission Report. The petitioners contended that the reservation policy violated the fundamental right to equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

Constitution Bench: The case was heard by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court comprising nine judges. The hearings began in 1992 and continued for almost five years. The bench heard arguments from both sides and also received inputs from various experts and stakeholders.

Interim Orders: During the pendency of the case, the Supreme Court issued several interim orders. In 1993, the court directed that the reservation policy would not be applicable to posts and seats meant for technical and professional courses. In 1997, the court directed that the creamy layer among the SEBCs should be excluded from the benefits of reservation.

Judgment: In 1999, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the case. The court upheld the constitutional validity of the reservation policy but imposed certain restrictions and conditions. The court held that the reservation should not exceed 50% and that it should be reviewed periodically. The court also held that the creamy layer among the SEBCs should be excluded from the benefits of reservation.

Controversies and Criticisms: The judgment in the Indra Sawhney case has been the subject of several controversies and criticisms. Some have criticized the court for diluting the concept of equality by upholding the reservation policy. Others have criticized the court for imposing arbitrary restrictions and conditions on the policy. However, the judgment remains a landmark in Indian legal history and continues to shape the discourse on reservations in the country.

Judgment

The Supreme Court of India rendered a historic decision in the 1992 case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, also referred to as the Mandal Commission case. The issue concerned the implementation of reservations for the socially and economically underprivileged sectors of Indian society in government employment and educational institutions. The Supreme Court’s nine-judge panel issued the ruling, which upheld the constitutionality of OBC reservations in government employment and educational settings. However, it also set certain limitations and conditions for the implementation of reservations.

One of the main issues before the court was whether the classification of the OBCs as a separate category was constitutional. The court held that the classification was based on intelligible differentia and was therefore constitutionally valid. The court also addressed the issue of the maximum limit for reservations. It held that the total reservation should not exceed 50% of the available seats or posts. However, it also allowed for exceptional circumstances where a higher percentage of reservations may be justified.

The court further emphasized that reservations should not be granted on the basis of economic criteria alone and that social and educational backwardness should be the primary criterion for determining eligibility for reservations. The judgment also dealt with the issue of creamy layer exclusion, which refers to excluding the relatively well-off members of the reserved categories from the benefits of reservations. The court held that the creamy layer exclusion should be applied to the OBCs as well and that the exclusion should be based on economic criteria. The court also directed the central government to create a permanent body to regularly review the implementation of reservations and to identify the backward classes that are in need of affirmative action.

Overall, the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India judgment has had a significant impact on the implementation of reservations in India. It has helped to ensure that reservations are not granted arbitrarily or on the basis of economic criteria alone and has set clear guidelines for the implementation of reservations in a fair and just manner.

Analysis

Reservations for Other Backward Classes were implemented as a result of the Mandal Commission Report (OBCs).

The “Creamy Layer” theory was developed by the court to deny the benefits of reservation to specific OBC groups based on their socioeconomic standing.

The Indra Sawhney judgment is a landmark judgment for several reasons. First, it upheld the constitutional validity of reservation for OBCs, but with certain restrictions. The court held that the total reservation, including reservations for SCs and STs, should not exceed 50% of the vacancies. The court also held that the reservation policy should not be based solely on caste but on the backwardness of the classes. The court further held that the creamy layer, i.e., the socially and economically advanced among the OBCs, should be excluded from the benefits of reservation.

Second, the court gave a detailed analysis of the concept of social backwardness and its relationship with caste. The court observed that social and educational backwardness can be caused by several factors, including poverty, lack of access to education, and geographical isolation. The court held that caste can be a factor in determining social backwardness but cannot be the sole criterion.

Third, the court recognized the importance of affirmative action in ensuring social justice and equality in a society marked by historical discrimination and oppression. The court observed that the Constitution of India envisages a society based on equality and social justice, and affirmative action is necessary to ensure that the benefits of development reach all sections of society.

Fourth, the court recognized the need to balance the competing claims of different sections of society. The court observed that while reservation is an important tool for social justice, it should not be at the cost of efficiency and merit. The court held that reservation should be a temporary measure and should be reviewed periodically to ensure that it does not perpetuate backwardness or lead to reverse discrimination.

Fifth, the court recognized the importance of diversity in a democratic society. The court held that diversity is a source of strength and vitality in a democracy, and any attempt to homogenize society would be against the spirit of the Constitution.

The Indra Sawhney judgment has had a significant impact on Indian society and polity. First, it has led to the implementation of reservation for OBCs in government jobs and educational institutions, leading to greater representation of OBCs in the public sphere. The judgment has led to a debate on the efficacy of reservation as a tool for social justice. While some have argued that reservation has led to the empowerment of the socially and economically backward classes, others have argued that it has perpetuated caste-based discrimination and led to a decline in the standards of education and administration.

Conclusion and Suggestions

The Supreme Court upheld the government’s decision to provide reservations for SEBCs in a limited manner, while also placing certain restrictions on the quantum of reservation and the definition of SEBCs.

The case’s conclusion and suggestions include:

The government can provide reservations for SEBCs, but it should be based on their social and educational backwardness, not their economic status. The reservation for SEBCs should not exceed 50% of the total seats/jobs, and there should be no reservation for the creamy layer. The government should regularly review the list of SEBCs to ensure that only the truly backward classes receive the benefits of reservation. The reservation policy should not undermine the merit-based selection process, and the reserved category candidates must meet the minimum qualifying standards. The government should also work on improving the educational and social status of the backward classes to reduce their dependence on reservations.

This case analysis is done by Vishal Menon, from Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad.