Case Brief: Indira Sawhney v Union of India

Introduction

The right to Equality is one of the basic fundamental rights of the Constitution of India, which is guaranteed to all the citizens of the country. Article 16 of the Constitution deals with the equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, which ensures equality of opportunity for all the citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. ‘Equal opportunity’ is a term that has differing definitions and does not have a precise meaning.

Reservation has been an overwhelming issue for quite a long time in India. It has seen times of differentiation in the educational and employment area not founded on open competition and merit but rather on rank, class edifying, money allied, and social footing. In the present case, the constitutional validity of two office memorandum of the Central Government was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Facts of the Case

• The President established the First Backward Classes Commission, sometimes referred to as the Kaka Kalelkar Commission, in 1953 in accordance with Article 340(1) of the Constitution to identify India’s backward classes. In 1995, the committee determined that 2399 castes were educationally and socially disadvantaged groups based on the criteria it devised. The report provided many answers, with the recommendation that the underlying cause be social backwardness associated with caste, which was then related to educational backwardness. The central government rejected the findings as a result.
• Subsequently, the Mandal Commission was created to investigate potential measures for advancing India’s underprivileged social and educational segments. The panel identified 3743 castes as being in socially and educationally disadvantaged strata in its 1980 report, and it suggested that there be 27% racial and ethnic discrimination in public appointments and government jobs.
• Later, bar groups petitioned the Supreme Court with a writ case that contested the government memo’s legality. The stay order was imposed by the court until the dispute was ultimately settled. In an effort to further address the problem, the Prime Minister revised the memo in 1990 by: (i) adding an economic criterion to the allocation of reservations within a 27% stake; and (ii) reserving an extra 10% of openings for academically and socially disadvantaged classes.
• Ultimately, the government was compelled to provide the requirements for the proposed 27% reserve policy by a nine-judge court that considered the petition. The Indian government, however, could not clarify the requirements stated in the memorandum’s office.

Issue

1. Whether Article 16(4) an exception to Article 16(1) and does it exhaust the privilege to reserve posts in State service?
2. In accordance with Article 16(4) of the Constitution, what would the term “Backward Classes” mean? Is caste the only factor that society uses to identify a caste or group of people? Could a class be defined for Article 16(4) only based on economic criteria? Does the term “Backward Classes” also relate to Article 46?
3. Whether it possible for economic factors to determine a class on their own, and does caste alone create distinct classes?
4. Does Article 16(4) of the Constitution permit the Backward Classes to be divided into the Most Backward Classes as specified, or does it permit the Backward Classes to be divided into the Backward Classes on the basis of economic or other grounds that the commission determines?
5. Whether “any provision” for a reservation “by the State” under Article 16(4) have to be made by a legislation enacted by parliament or by a bill passed by the state legislature? Or may these provisions be included in executive orders as well?
6. Which criteria, economic or caste-based, will be used to designate the Backward Classes, how much of their reservations will be allotted, and will the scope of judicial review be restricted or limited in this way?
7. Whether the classification of appointments or posts as “in favor of any Backward Class” only applies to initial appointments, or would it also apply to promotions?

Arguments

Contention of Petitioner

The petitioners’ lawyers argued that reservation made the bad impacts of the caste system worse and that this would prevent India from developing into a welfare state. They said that meritocracy would give way to mediocrity and the standard would be replaced with subpar if the reservation remained in place. The Mandal report, according to the petitioners, was effectively an attempt to amend the Constitution.

Contention of Respondent

The State made response said that the report only offered a means for the disadvantaged groups to fulfil their justifiable requests. The first minority commission, they claimed, had also supported affirmative action as a means of addressing historical injustices that the underclass had suffered alongside one another for many years, and that was what the research was doing.

Judgement

The nine-judge Supreme Court Constitution Bench decided by a majority of 6:3 that the Union Government’s decision to reserve 27% of the seats for socially and educationally disadvantaged groups is a legitimate policy. Nonetheless, the Court declared that the Office Memorandum’s second section was unconstitutional as it was unlawful to reserve 10% of government positions for individuals from economically disadvantaged groups amid higher rank. 

The following is a list of the signification statements.

• Caste system and economic status are two factors that may be utilised to identify a citizen’s backward classes, as per Article 16(4).
• Article 16(4) does not constitute an exception to article 16(1); rather, it just articulates the idea that is implicit in the primary provision itself in a strong way. Article 16. (1) may also be used to make a reservation.
• There are differences in the social and educational difficulties faced by the Backward Classes mentioned in Article 16(4) and Article 15. (4).
• The concept of the Creamy Layer must be ignored while determining backward classes.
• Requirements for reservations ought to be stricter than the 50% ceiling.
• The reservation may have legal force if the “Executive Order” and approval are obtained.
• The reserve provision must be applied solely to hiring or appointment processes, not to advancement.
• A permanent statutory authority will be created to evaluate complaints about the admission or expulsion of individuals based on criteria for backward classes.

In the case of the Mandal Commission, sometimes referred to as the Indra Sawhney case. In this case, the court set a 50% maximum reservation limit. The definitions of “backward classes,” “class,” and “caste” in their broadest senses, as well as the provision under Article 15(4) for socially and educationally backward classes and the exclusion of the “creamy layer” in the determination of backward classes, are discussed after a general explanation of how Article 16(4) should be interpreted. Furthermore, the reserve clause and its explanation have been inserted, and the relationship between Article 16 (1) and (4) has been severed.

Analysis

The Court aimed to establish a workable solution in the Indra Sawhney case that balances society’s rights with those of the disadvantaged groups. Removing economic reasons as the sole basis for classification and omitting the creamy layer—which had sufficiently benefited from affirmative action—were also positive steps. Though the Court’s ruling was kind, subsequent modifications to the reservation standards by following governments demonstrated that reserve was now just a tool for vote-bank politics and nothing more.

Nearly three decades after this significant ruling, the anti-reservation lobby has become stronger, but legislators need to be reminded of the obligations the framers of the Constitution placed upon them. Though there is still much work to be done to make up for past wrongs, reservations have surely helped elevate the lower classes.

The drafters of the Constitution really intended to advance socioeconomic parity in Indian society by means of affirmative action, often referred to as reservation, and particularly by means of the reservation in public employment sectors as outlined in Article 16 of the Constitution. In addition to the differences in language, religion, and culture, the authors of the Constitution understood that there were social, cultural, and economic divides within Indian society and that certain people were not as strong as others. In order to better their living conditions and put them on level with other segments of society, the Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes were given protection under the Constitution. Therefore, a reserve provision was included to the Constitution.

The Indian Constitution does not introduce the concept of reservations for the socially and economically disadvantaged as a whole; it was already in place prior to the constitution. It is important to highlight the reservation made in this instance based on the recommendation of the 1918-formed committee that was authorised by the Mysore princely state. Affirmative action had previously been advocated by individuals such as Jyotibha Phule and others, and although the British did accommodate some of these classes’ concerns, their reasons were never quite evident. Reservations have become more of a political tool over time, rather than a real attempt to build an egalitarian society.

The “Mandal Commission Report” and the ensuing discussion will live on in the memories of all Indians. By endorsing the implementation of the Mandal Commission Report, the Apex Court’s ruling in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India cemented its centrality in any discourse around the sensitive topic of reservations in India.

One of the declared objectives of the Indian Constitution is the creation of an egalitarian society, particularly via the eradication of caste and the caste system. Several consecutive governments have created a range of affirmative action initiatives to eradicate caste and encourage social mobility for disadvantaged groups in order to accomplish this aim.

These policies often involve giving members of historically marginalised groups seats in representative bodies, educational institutions, or government posts. But over time, these behaviours have transformed into populist instruments meant to appease specific demographics. This is the reason that every time a comparable policy has been put out, it has caused controversy and polarised opinion among the people. Sometimes this disagreement has evolved into open protests for or against reserves, including with riots.

When it comes to deciding these hotly contested legislation, the judiciary’s task has not been easy; it must balance the need to uphold the Constitution’s sacred framework with the needs of society. The Apex Court has frequently heard arguments over the criteria for determining backwardness in order to be eligible for reservation. This problem is expressly addressed in some cases. The most significant of these is the 1992 decision made by the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. One of the most dependable decisions on OBC reservations in the country was made possible by this case.

The Mandal Commission’s recommendations were seen as flawed in a number of ways. The Supreme Court addressed a number of challenging but important issues in this ruling that will affect the long-term stability and well-being of Indian society. The Supreme Court’s reserve decision addressed a lot of ground in an extremely detailed, innovative, and well-thought-out way. It gave Indians who belong to the general category and those who belong to the reserved group a place to talk. After the commission’s suggested reserve policies were scrutinised, several individuals made the decision to oppose them.

Because it guarantees that more worthy candidates will be passed over for restricted posts, reservation in government services is anti-meritocratic. But since this policy has already been implemented, it could be challenging to change. The Constitution seeks to promote fraternity and togetherness by granting everyone the same position and opportunities. In order to guarantee this, further clauses were inserted, including Articles 41, 45, and 46, which provide reservations in employment, educational admissions, and appointment processes, provided that they do not impair the government’s efficacy.

A ten-year reserve of seats for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in state legislatures and the House of People was initially defined in Article 334. This reserve has been sporadically extended till 2010 AD. Article 340 calls for the establishment of a commission to examine the social and educational issues facing the less fortunate groups and offer recommendations for solutions. By guaranteeing equality of opportunity and status, these policies seek to uplift disadvantaged populations and promote nationalism, fraternity, and unity.

The topic of whether it was appropriate to define backward classes based on caste or other factors in the secular society that the Constitution intended to exist was brought up in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. The majority of judges ruled that since neither the Constitution nor the law specify how to define the economically disadvantaged, it is possible to create backward classes based on castes among other occupational groups, classes, and demographic segments. It is imperative that the appointed authorities make the decision on any method or technique, as the Court is not in a position to develop one. It is difficult to reconcile the Indra Sawhney verdict with the court’s reasoning in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India that secularism is a basic principle of the Constitution.

While people are free to profess, practise, and propagate their religion, faith, or belief, another bench of nine judges ruled that an individual’s religion, faith, or belief is irrelevant from the perspective of the State. In response to the Indra Sawhney case, Nani A. Palkhivala contended that the judgement will split the country and ignore the fundamentals of the Constitution by giving fresh life to casteism. The choice will create fresh opportunities for internal disputes and fissiparous forces, revive casteism, and split the country in half, advanced and backward.

In a letter to the Chief Ministers, Prime Minister Nehru claimed that providing chances for a quality education is the most effective approach to assist a disadvantaged population. However, caste and sectarian prejudices stifle intelligent and capable individuals, keeping them as second- or third-class citizens. By all means, he advocated for aiding underprivileged populations, but never at the expense of effectiveness.

Conclusion

In the Indra Sawhney case, the court made an effort to reach a justifiable conclusion that strikes a delicate balance between the rights of the underprivileged classes and society. Both the removal of economic factors as the exclusive criterion for categorization and the elimination of the creamy layer, who had already reaped sufficient benefits from affirmative action, were positive steps. Although the Court’s decision was thoughtful, further changes made to the reservation criteria by various administrations further demonstrated that, above all, reservations had now genuinely turned into a political tool for vote-bank politics.

Almost thirty years after this historic decision, anti-reservation arguments have gained traction, but legislators need to remember the responsibilities the framers granted them through the Constitution. The phenomena of reservations has undoubtedly contributed to the advancement of the lower classes, but more work needs to be done before all past wrongs are made right.