Indra Sawhney

vs
Union Of India &
Ors

Mukul Sharma
18BAL5171
 BENCH
  M Kania,
 M Venkatachaliah,
 S R Pandian,
 T Ahmadi,
 K Singh,
 P Sawant,
 R Sahai
 B J Reddy
 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
 The government initiated affirmative action for the Depressed Class,
Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs) when India gained
independence in 1947. However, there was no list of the country's Other
Backward Classes (OBC), which were less backward than the ST and SC
caste
 On January 29, 1953, India constituted the first Backward Classes
Commission to address this issue. Kaka Kalelkar, the commission's
chairman, was also known as the Kalelkar Commission.
 On March 30, 1955, the commission reported to the Central
Government, identifying 2399 castes as socially and educationally backward.
The Central Government, on the other hand, had the notion of creating a casteless
society, hence the Commission's recommendation was rejected in 1961.
 On January 1, 1979, the Mandal Commission, also known as the Socially and
Educationally Backward Classes Commission, was established. The
commission was established by the Janata Dal, which was led by then-Prime
Minister Morarji Desai.
 Aim: To identify socially or educationally disadvantaged groups and offer them
reservations in government services and positions. Because the Janata Party's
administration fell apart, they were unable to carry out these proposals.
 For several years, there was little progress in this area until the Janata
Dal regained power in 1989 and decided to adopt the report's
recommendations, reserving 27% of the seats for socially
disadvantaged strata.
 Reservation and anti-reservation protests erupted across the country,
with violence breaking out in some areas.
 When the government's action was challenged in the Supreme Court via
a writ petition, then-Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao issued a
new order increasing the reservation limit to 37% and encompassing
economically, socially, and educationally backward classes.
 Related Provisions
 Article 14 of the Indian constitution- Equality before law and equal
protection[v]
 Article 15(4) of the Indian Constitution- Special provision for the
advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes[vi]
 Article 16(1) of the Indian Constitution- Equality of opportunity for all
citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office
under the State
 Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution-Provision for the reservation of
appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizen, who is not
adequately represented in the service under the State

 Article 46 of the Indian Constitution- Promotion of educational and

economic interests of Schedules Castes, Schedules Tribes and other weaker
sections

 Article 340 of the Indian Constitution-Appointment of Commission to

investigate the conditions of backward classes
 Issue with the Case
 The court also framed issues that needed to be resolved in order to deal with
the situation at hand. Some of these difficulties included:
 Whether caste is a distinct class on its own, and whether economic criteria
may be used to classify people.
 Whether Article 16(4) is a stand-alone exception to Article 16(1) and covers
all reserve rights.
 Is it permissible to classify ‘Backward Classes' into Backward Classes and
Most Backward Classes under Article 16(4), or to classify them among
themselves based on economic or other considerations?
 Ratio Decidendi
 Article 16(4) is exhaustive of the provision made in favour of backward
classes in a matter of public employment. The court manifested on saying
the Reservation is neither a matter of policy nor a political issue and the
higher courts in the country are constitutionally obliged to exercise the
power of judicial review in every matter which is constitutional in nature.
 The constitutional bar under article 16(2) against the state for not
discriminating on race, religion or caste is as much applicable to articles
16(4) and (1) for ensuring equality. Identification of backward class by caste
is against the Constitution.
 Reservation under Article 16(4) being for any class of citizens not only
Hindus but Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains etc., The principle
for identification has to be the universal application so as to extend to every
community.
 Reservation being extreme of protective measure it should be confined to a
minority of seats, the principle of balancing equality should not exceed 50%
threshold limit of reservation.
 Reservation in promotion is constitutionally impermissible.
 Creamy Layer amongst backward classes must be excluded by fixation of
proper income, property or status criteria.
 Judgment
 The Supreme Court's nine-judge panel decided the Indra Sawhney
Case with a 6:3 majority on November 16, 1992:
 The caste system, not merely the economy, can be linked to the
Backward class of citizens described in Article 16(4).
 Division of Backward Classes: Backward classes can be divided
into backward and most backward classes, according to Article
16(4).
 The promotion does not include any reservations.
 Article 16(4) does not provide an exception to the general rule (1). Article
16 (4) allows reservations to be made. Article 16(4) defined socially and
educationally backward classes differently than Article 15(4) defined
socially and educationally backward classes.
 Reservation’s Maximum Limit: 50%.
 The backward classes must not include the creamy layer.
 Permanent statutory body charged with investigating allegations of over-
inclusion and under-inclusion.
 Only the Supreme Court can resolve disagreements about new criteria.
 Conclusion
 The Supreme Court of India attempted to determine the best course
of action in this case. It is a wise decision based on the balance of
backward classes' reservations in society.
THANK YOU!