CASE COMMENT: Indra Sawhney Etc. Vs. Union of India & Others, AIR 1993 SC 447

AUTHOR : MUSKAN GOYAT, INTERN AT ILW

Facts of the Case:-

 In 1979, the President of India formed the second Backward Classes Commission, commonly known as the Mandal Commission, under Article 340(1). The commission’s duty was to identify the socially and educationally backward classes and decide quotas for their advancement. In 1990, the commission submitted its report and recommended a 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in Central government services and the public sector. The central government implements 49.5% reservation, including SC, ST & OBCs. This caused civil disturbance in India. As a Journalist, Indra Sawhney filed a case in the Supreme Court against the 27% reservation for OBC. Because she felt that there was no reservation on an economic basis in society. The petitioners argued that the policy violated Articles 14,15, and 16 by promoting inequality.

Issues Raised:-

·       Whether reservation for OBCs in public employment is constitutionally valid under Article 16(4).

·       Whether economic backwardness alone can be a criterion for reservation.

·       Whether there should be a maximum limit on total reservations.

·       Whether a reservation can be extended to promotion in public services.

Arguments by the Petitioners

The petitioners were represented by India’s most famous Constitutional Advocate, Shri Nani A. Palkhivala. It was argued that the reservation of 27% to OBCs violated the right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 & 16(1) of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners also opposed the idea of reservation in promotion, arguing that the administrative efficiency of the nation explained under Article 335 of the Indian Constitution, had been compromised. The petitioners argued that reservations should depend on economic backwardness, not on the whole community.

Arguments by the Respondent

The respondents argued that the state can make special provisions for backward classes in public employment under Article 16(4) of the Indian Constitution. It was explained that “reservation is not an exception to equality but a means to achieve substantive equality”. They argued that economic criteria alone cannot fulfill the historical discrimination faced by backward classes. The respondents argued that Article 335 of the Indian Constitution would not be violated if the reservation policies were implemented properly.  

Court’s Reasoning

The Court’s legal reasoning was based on the principles of equality & non-discrimination, which were explained in Articles 14 & 16 of the Indian Constitution.

The Key points of the reasoning included:-

·       Creamy Layer Doctrine – The Court introduced the concept of “creamy layer”. It means that the individuals who were socially advanced & economically better among OBCs did not get reservation benefits. This doctrine ensures that the genuinely backward classes should enjoy the benefits of reservation.

·       50% ceiling on Reservation – The court also made a general rule that the total reservation should not be more than 50%.

Conclusion

It was a landmark judgment that explained the reservation policies of India. This case was also known as the Mandal Commission & Creamy Layer Case. The Court introduced the creamy layer doctrine, which ensured that reservation benefits reach the truly backward classes. The Court explained that economic criteria alone cannot fulfill the historical discrimination faced by backward classes. The decision of the Court depends on equality & substantive equality. The court also made a general rule that the total reservation should not be more than 50%.

References –

·       Indra Sawhney v. Union of India,

1992 Supp (3) SCC 217; AIR 1993 SC 477.

·       B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J., Majority Opinion in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India (1992).

·       M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 8th Edition, LexisNexis, Chapter on Reservation and Equality.

·       V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, Eastern Book Company, Commentary on Articles 14, 15, and 16.

·       D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, LexisNexis, Reservation Policy and Equality Jurisprudence.

·       Granville Austin, Working a Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience, Oxford University Press.

·       Government of India, Office Memorandum dated 13 August 1990, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Mandal Commission implementation).

·       Article 16(4), Constitution of India – Reservation in public employment.

·        Law Commission of India Reports relating to reservation and backward classes.

·       Supreme Court Cases (SCC) Online Database – Case analysis and judicial interpretation.