CONCEPT – INDIRA SAWHNEY CASE, 1992

Excellent study material for all civil services aspirants - begin learning - Kar ke dikhayenge!

 CONCEPT – INDIRA SAWHNEY CASE, 1992

---

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

---

• Introduction : This is a landmark case when “reservations for backward classes” is discussed in India. The concept of creamy layer was formed through this.
• Facts of the case:

1. In the beginning KAKA KALELKAR COMMISSION was formed in 1955, which submitted the report containing lists of people of backward caste. This was formed as per Article 340 of the Constitution.
2. The then government did not accept it and soon in the later elections Mrs. Indira Gandhi came to power.
3. In the meantime, the MANDAL COMMISSION prepared another report about the lists of the backward classes in the country but was not implemented by then PM Indira Gandhi. It would be taken up by another PM in 1989.
4. Later, when the JANATA PARTY came to power, as a part of the political strategy the then PM V.P. Singh issued a memorandum for reserving 27% of seats for socially and backward classes.
5. This led to civil disturbance in the country in 1990, and agitations were frequent. The Bar Association of SC filed a writ petition questioning the basis of the memorandum issued by the government.
6. The case was to be decided by a 5-judges bench, but in the meantime political changes led to a new government and the new PM Shri P.V. Narshima Rao issued another memorandum making subsequent changes. These included introducing the economic factor while deciding the reservation criterion and increased 10% of reservation totalling upto 37%. 
7. Thereafter, the case was referred to a 9-bench judge in the apex court. This became the now-famous Mandal case or the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992, in which the scope and extent of Article 16(4), which provides for reservation of jobs in favour of backward classes, was examined thoroughly by the Supreme Court.

• Issues:

1. Whether article 16(4) supersedes article 16(1)
2. Whether the extent of reservation can exceed 50%
3. Whether there are further classifications in the already classified backward class

• The Judgement: The SC in Indira Sawhney & Ors v. Union of India. AIR 1993 SC 477 : 1992 Supp (3)SCC 217 upheld implementation of separate reservation for other backward classes in central government jobs. The Court rejected the additional reservation of 10% for poorer sections of higher castes It upheld the constitutional validity of 27% reservation for the OBCs with certain conditions, viz,

1. The advanced sections among the OBCs (the creamy layer) should be excluded from the list of beneficiaries of reservation.
2. No reservation in promotions; reservation should be confined to initial appointments only. Any existing reservation in promotions can continue for five years only (i.e., upto 1997).
3. The total reserved quota should not exceed 50% except in some extraordinary situations. This rule should be applied every yr.
4. The ‘carry forward rule’ in case of unfilled (backlog) vacancies is valid. But it should not violate 50% rule.
5. A permanent statutory body should be established to examine complaints of over-inclusion/under-inclusion in the list of OBCs

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

Join UPSC Self Prep course | Online Course (PT Gurukul)  | Covid Special Course | Join PT courses

* Content sourced from free internet sources (publications, PIB site, international sites, etc.). Take your own subscriptions. Copyrights acknowledged.