TITLE – The recommendation of reservations for OBCs in Central Government services was finally implemented in 1992.

CASE NAME- Indira Sawhney V Union of India 1992

CITATION- AIR 1993 SC 477, 1992 Supp 2 SCR 454

COURT- Supreme Court

BENCH- M. Kania, M. Venkatachaliah, S.R Pandian, T. Ahmadi, K. Singh P. Sawant, R. Sahai, B.J Reddy.

Decided on-  16th November 1992

Case Laws-

·        State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1975)

·        R. K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995)

·        Arijit Singh v. State of Punjab (1996)

·        M.Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006)

·        Jarnail Singh v. LachhmiNarain Gupta (2018)

Brief Facts and Procedural History-

o   The Government headed by PM Sri Morarji Desai designated the second Backward Classes Commission under Article 340 of the Constitution to research the SEBCs inside the region of India and prescribe the action to be taken for their progressions.

o   Indira Sawhney was the appellant who filed the case against the Union of India because of the system of reservation. The appellant filed the case for the reservation of seats in the government quota of SC, ST and OBCs. He appealed that Article 16 (4) is a violation of Article 16(1). He raised his hands for the reservation of seats.

o   The commission presents its report and recognizes 3743 stations as socially and instructively in backward classes and prescribes a booking for their 27 % Government employment for them.

o   Due to internal disturbances in the party itself, Janta Government fell and the Congress party came into power under PM Indira Gandhi and came to control in the middle. The Congress government didn't execute the commission report till 1989.

o   In 1989 the Congress party collapsed and the Janta government again came to control and issued Office Memoranda to execute the commission report as it guaranteed to the electorate. In the wake of this, the country came into unrest and a rough hostile to reservation development shook the country for three months bringing about tremendous loss of people and property.

o   A writ request for the benefit of the Supreme Court Bar Association was filed testing the legitimacy of the O.M. furthermore, to stay its task. The five-judge seat of the court remained the task of OM till the last transfer of the case.

o   Unfortunately, the Janta Government fell because of disobedience and the Congress party again came to control at the inside headed by P.V. Narasimha Rao issued another O.M. on September 25, 1991, by presenting the financial standard in conceding reservation by offering inclination to the poorer areas of SEBCs in the 27 % quantity and saved another 10% of opportunities for different SEBCs monetarily in backward segments of higher rank.

o   The first Backward Class Commission known as Kaka Kallelkar's Commission was set up and it submitted its report listing 2399 castes as socially and educationally backwards based on criteria evolved by it, but the Central Government did not accept that report and shelved Commission under Article 340 of the Constitution under the chairmanship of Sri B.P. Mandal to investigate the Socially & Educationally Backward Classes within the territory of India.

o   But in the meanwhile, due to internal disturbances, the government collapsed and imposed the provisions given by Mandal Commission and the Congress party came to rule after that.

The contention of the petitioner-

The advocates for the petitioners led by NaniPalkhiwala argued that reservation further provoked the evil of the caste system and this evil will hamper India’s march towards being a welfare state. They further argued that if the reservation was continued it will replace standard with sub-standard and meritocracy with mediocrity. Petitioners also alleged that the Mandal report was in essence trying to rewrite the Constitution.

The contention of The respondent-

The respondent State said that the report merely gives the backward classes a means to fulfil their just claims. They argued that the report was a continuation of the first minorities commission which also recommended affirmative action to right the wrongs that backward classes have faced for centuries together.

Issue-

·        Whether provisions under Article 16(4) be made only by Parliament?

·        Whether any order of the executive in light of Article 16(4) is enforceable?

·        Whether Article 16(4) is exhaustive of the concept of reservation for backward classes?

·        Whether we can subdivide backward classes?

·        What is the extent of reservations which can be made?

·        Whether reservation is applicable only till appointment or extends to promotions?

Ratio-

1.      Any executive order under Article 73 of the Constitution of India is enforceable and the mere omission of words “in the name of or by order of President” does not affect the enforceability of an order.

2.      Article 16(1) is a characteristic of the doctrine of equality embedded in Article 14 and shows itself as a reasonable classification instead of an exception.

3.      After examining various judicial pronouncements and relevant Articles the court opined that, to extract full benefits from the provision of reservation, any concession, exception, or preference to backward classes be considered as the reservation.

4.      After a lengthy discussion, the bench believed that “Caste can be considered for detecting social class. If a class is backwards socially, it would be considered a backward class for Article 16(4)”. Neither the Constitution nor any law provides any yardstick to identify who qualifies as a backward class and who does not.

5.      The court observed that if there are two backward classes and one class is far behind the advanced class, then the backward class merely behind would take away all the seats.

Held-

·        The recommendation of reservations for OBCs in central government services was finally implemented in 1992. The Supreme Court of India gave the verdict that 27% of central government reservation for OBCs is valid.

·        However, some states denied the existence of the creamy layer, and a report commissioned by the Supreme Court was implemented.

·        This judgement also overruled verdicts of the case, which said that reservations could be made in promotions as well as appointments. It held that reservations cannot be applied to promotions.

·        It upheld the ceiling of 50 per cent quotas, emphasized the concept of "social backwardness", and prescribed 11 indicators to ascertain backwardness.

·        The nine-Judge Bench judgement also established the concept of qualitative exclusion, such as the "creamy layer". The creamy layer is only applicable in the case of Other Backward Castes and not applicable to another group like SC or ST.