Case Analysis: Indra Sawhney v. Union Of India AIR 1993 SCC 477.

Author: Yukti Shiwankar.

CITATION

AIR 1993 SCC 477.

NAMES OF PARTIES

Appellant: Indra Sawhney;

Respondent: Union of India.

JUDGES

Justice M. Kania, (Assenting);

Justice M. Venkatachaliah (Assenting);

Justice S. R. Pandian (Assenting);

Justice T. Ahmadi (Assenting);

Justice K. Singh (Dissenting);

Justice P. Sawant (Assenting);

Justice R. Sahai (Dissenting);

Justice B. J. Reddy (Assenting);

Justice T.K. Thommen (Dissenting).

INTRODUCTION

Almost every Indian born after Independence has thought about, criticized, used, or is affected by India’s reservation policy at some point in their lives. The term “reservations” also known as “affirmative action,” “positive discrimination,” or “compensatory discrimination,” refers to the justice provided to members of historically underrepresented groups.((10 judgments that changed India, Zia Mody.)) Reservations required by the Constitution are implemented in India via percentage-based quotas that favour people from historically lower social strata.

The Supreme Court upheld the government rule in its decision on November 16, 1992, believing caste to be a legitimate sign of backwardness. Thus, in 1992, the recommendation for OBC reservations in central government services was eventually put into effect. The Indra Sawhney case is where the key decision on India’s backward class reservation standards was made. The Court has highlighted the categories of caste, class, backward class, and several other terms in their more general senses. It has been questioned how to interpret Article 16(4) concerning reservations made for public appointments. The Court has established a 50% maximum for reservations as well as other issues that affect economically disadvantaged groups. The Court took into account the Mandal Commission’s report on the backward classes.

A nine-judges Supreme Court panel considered the Mandal Commission Report and the debate that followed it when deciding the Indra Sawhney case in 1992. The case is renowned for establishing several important concepts, including the exclusion of the “creamy layer” from the scope of reservation policy and the 50% reservation level.((Indra Sawhney v. Union of India – Indian Law Portal.)) The Apex Court extended and clarified the scope and limit of India’s backward class reservations. The Supreme Court’s decision in India Sawhney is crucial because it establishes the caste standards, the basis for classifying people as belonging to “backward classes,” and it allows members of these groups to be chosen for competitions based on merit without being counted against the quota set aside for them. Unmotivated individuals are given the authority to play fairly on the platform thanks to impartial and autonomous judgment. Additionally, this decision nullified the rulings in General Manager Southern Railway v. Rangachari((General Manager Southern Railway v. Rangachari 1962 AIR 36, 1962 SCR (2) 586.)) and Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India,((Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 298.)) which held that reservations could be made in both appointments and promotions. Reservations cannot be used in promotions, according to the ruling in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.((Indra Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477.))

FACTS

• According to Article 340(1) of the Constitution, the President appointed the First Backward Classes Commission, often known as the Kaka Kalelkar Commission, in 1953 to determine the backward classes in India. According to the criteria it developed, the committee reported in 1995 that 2399 castes were socially and educationally backward groups. The report offered several explanations and advised that caste-linked social backwardness, which in turn was tied to educational backwardness, be the root reason. As a result, the study was rejected by the central government.
• Later, the Mandal Commission was established to look into what might be done to progress India’s socially and educationally disadvantaged groups. In its 1980 report, the panel recognized 3743 castes as belonging to socially and educationally disadvantaged strata and proposed 27% racial and ethnic discrimination in government employment and public appointments.((The mandal commission and after, shodhganga.))
• Later, a writ petition contesting the government’s memo’s legitimacy in office was submitted by bar associations to the Supreme Court. Until the lawsuit was finally resolved, the court ordered the stay order.
• To further address the issue, the Prime Minister issued a new office of the memorandum in 1990, making two changes to the original: I adding an economic criterion to the grant of reservations within 27% stake; and (ii) reserving an additional 10% of vacancies for socially and academically disadvantaged classes.
• In the end, a nine-judge court heard the petition and ordered the government to present the standards for the planned 27% reservation policy. However, the Indian government was unable to clarify the specifications listed in the memorandum’s office.

ISSUES

1. Does Article 16(4) exhaust the right to reserve jobs in State service and constitute an exception to Article 16(1)?
2. What would the word “Backward Classes” mean under Article 16(4) of the Constitution? Could caste alone define a caste or class of individuals as designated by society? Could an economic criterion alone define a class for Article 16(4)? Would “Backward Classes” also refer to Article 46?
3. Whether caste on its own constitutes a different class and whether economic criteria could by itself be the determinant of a class?
4. Does Article 16(4) of the Constitution allow the division of the Backward Classes into the Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes as stated or authorize the division of the Backward Classes into the Backward Classes based on economic or other factors determined by the commission?
5. Does “any provision” under Article 16(4) for a reservation “by the State” have to be made by a bill passed by the state’s legislators or by a law passed by parliament? Or may executive orders also be used to provide such provisions?
6. The designation of Backward Classes and the proportion of reservations given for them will be based on what criteria, the economic factor or caste, and will the scope of judicial review be limited or restricted in this regard?
7. Would the “in favor of any Backward Class” designation of appointments or jobs apply just to initial appointments or would it also apply to promotions?

CONTENTIONS

Petitioner

The petitioners’ attorneys, led by Nani Palkhiwala, contended that the caste system’s negative effects were exacerbated by reservation and that this negative effect will impede India’s progress toward becoming a welfare state. They further stated that if the reservation was kept in place, the standard would be replaced by substandard, and meritocracy would be replaced by mediocrity. Additionally, petitioners claimed that the Mandal report was essentially an attempt to change the Constitution.

Respondent

The respondent State said that the report only provides a way for the underprivileged classes to realize their legitimate demands. They said that the study was an extension of the first minority commission, which had likewise advocated affirmative action to redress historical injustices that the underclasses had endured side by side for generations.

JUDGMENT

By a vote of 6:3, the nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the Union Government’s decision to hold a 27% reservation for socially and educationally disadvantaged segments is a lawful provision. However, the Court ruled that it was invalid to hold 10% of government jobs for members of economically disadvantaged groups among higher status, and so invalidated the second clause of the Office Memorandum. The signification statements are listed below.

• According to Article 16(4), a citizen’s caste system as well as their economic standing can be used to determine their backward classes.
• Article 16(4) solely expresses the concept inherent in the primary provision itself in an emphatic manner rather than being an exception to article 16(1). A reservation may also be made in accordance with Article 16. (1).
• The Backward Classes described in Article 16(4) do not have the same social and educational disadvantages as the Backward Classes described in Article 15. (4).
• When identifying backward classes, the idea of the Creamy Layer must be disregarded.
• The requirements for a reservation should be more stringent than the 50% cap.
• The “Executive Order” and consent can give the reservation legal force.
• The reserve clause will only be used for purposes of employment or appointment, not promotion.
• To investigate complaints about the admission or exclusion of persons based on criteria for backward classes, a permanent statutory authority will be affiliated.

In the Mandal Commission case, commonly known as the Indra Sawhney case. The court in this instance fixed the maximum level of reservation at 50%. Following a general explanation of the interpretation of Article 16(4), the definition of “backward classes,” “class,” and “caste” in its broadest sense, 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. Additionally, the connection between Article 16 (1) and (4) has been broken, and both the reservation clause and its justification have been added.

ANALYSIS

In the Indra Sawhney case, the Court made an effort to find a suitable remedy that strikes a delicate balance between society and the rights of the underprivileged classes. A step in the right direction was also taken by eliminating economic factors as the only criterion for categorization and by excluding the creamy layer, which had already reaped the benefits of affirmative action to a sufficient degree. The Court’s decision may have been compassionate, but later changes made to the reservation criteria by succeeding administrations further proved that reserve was now primarily about vote-bank politics and nothing more. The anti-reservation voices have gained strength almost three decades after this important decision, but lawmakers should be reminded of the responsibilities the Constitution’s creators gave them. There is still a long way to go until all past wrongs are righted, but the phenomenon of reservations has undoubtedly assisted in pulling up the lower classes.

The Constitution’s founders made a sincere effort to promote socioeconomic equality in Indian society through affirmative action, often known as reservation, and notably through the reservation in areas of public employment as stipulated in Article 16 of the Constitution. Apart from the disparities in religion, culture, and language, the writers of the Constitution were cognizant of the fact that Indian society was not homogeneous and that some individuals were, in comparison to others, weaker than others in terms of their economic, social, and cultural standing. The Constitution provided us with a system to protect the Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes to improve their living conditions and bring them on par with other parts of society. As a result, the Constitution was amended to include a reserve clause. Reservation for those who are socially and economically disadvantaged as a whole is not a recent idea that has been established in the Indian Constitution; it also existed before the constitution. It is significant to note here the reservation made on the advice of the committee formed in 1918 and approved by the former princely state of Mysore. People like Jyotibha Phule and others had previously raised the desire for affirmative action, and while the British did grant some of these classes’ reservations, their motivations were never quite clear. Over time, reservations have shifted from being a sincere endeavour to create an equitable society to more of a political instrument.

Every Indian will always remember the “Mandal Commission Report” and the debate that followed. The Apex Court decision in the matter of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India established a central position for itself in every discussion on the touchy subject of reservations in India by supporting the execution of the Mandal Commission Report.

The establishment of an equitable society, including and especially via the abolition of caste and the caste system, is one of the stated goals of the Indian Constitution. To achieve this goal, multiple succeeding administrations have developed a variety of affirmative action programs to end caste and promote social mobility for underprivileged groups. These policies frequently entail allocating seats in representative bodies, educational institutions, or government jobs to members of groups that have historically been marginalized. These actions, however, have evolved into populist tools used to placate particular groups of people throughout time. Because of this, every time a similar policy has been proposed, it has divided the public and sparked intense debate. This conflict has occasionally turned into rioting and open protests for or against reservations.

The judiciary’s job has not been simple when these fiercely debated laws have been up for adjudication; it must take into consideration societal realities while also anchoring its decision in the holy framework of the Constitution. The standards for defining backwardness to qualify for reservation have often come up for debate before the Apex Court. Several instances specifically address this issue. The 1992 ruling by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India is the most important of them. This case laid the path for one of the nation’s most reliable rulings on OBC reservations. The Mandal Commission’s proposals were viewed in several ways as being incorrect. In this decision, the Supreme Court addressed several difficult but crucial questions that would have an impact on the welfare and stability of Indian society in the future. The Supreme Court’s judgment on the reserve issue covered a wide range of topics in a highly thoughtful, original, and thorough manner. It provided a forum for discussion between Indians who fall under the general category and those who fall under the reserved category. The commission’s proposed reserve policies came under scrutiny, and some people chose to fight them.

Because a more deserving applicant must always be passed up for a reserved position, reservation in government services is fundamentally anti-meritocracy. However, reservation is now a reality and will stay that way for a very long time. Society may soon find it challenging to repeal the reservation policy. Even if India’s backward classes are still far from being equally represented, making the reservations reach a very high percentage seems to neglect the people who put in the effort to get a job.

One of the goals and objectives of the Constitution is to provide equality of status and opportunity to all people and to foster brotherhood among them, upholding each person’s dignity and the unity and integrity of the country. The right to equality and the prohibition of discrimination against any citizen based on race, religion, caste, sex, or place of birth were insufficient to ensure that the fundamental human right was meaningful to the weaker sections of society, so the constitution’s framers added additional provisions, specifically Articles 41, 45, and 46, which called for positive state action and permitted reservations in admissions to educational institutions as well as in posts and appointments as long as they didn’t compromise the effectiveness of the government. Article 334 originally outlined a ten-year reserve of seats for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the state legislatures and the House of the People. However, this provision has occasionally been extended up to 2010 AD by subsequent changes to the Constitution. The creation of a commission to look into the social and educational problems of the underprivileged classes and give suggestions for how to improve them is provided for in Article 340. All of these measures aim to quickly improve underprivileged groups to ensure equality of opportunity and position, which will in turn foster nationalism, brotherhood, and togetherness.

In the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, the fundamental question of whether it was acceptable to identify backward classes based on or about caste in the secular society envisioned by the Constitution was brought up because doing so would only serve to maintain the caste system and foster animosity and hostility between castes. Identifying backward classes can undoubtedly be done concerning castes among, and along with, other occupational groupings, classes, and sections of people, the majority of justices said. The explanation is: Neither the Constitution nor the legislation specifies how to identify the economically disadvantaged. Furthermore, the Court cannot or should not establish any such approach or technique. It must be left up to the designated authorities to decide. Any method or approach that it chooses to use, as long as the population being surveyed is completely covered, is acceptable.

It is challenging to reconcile the ruling in Indra Sawhney with the court’s explanation of secularism as a fundamental tenet of the Constitution in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, where another bench of nine justices declared as follows: “While the citizens of this country are free to profess, practice and propagate such religion, faith or belief as they choose, so far as the State is concerned, i.e. from the point of view of the State, the religion, faith or belief of a person is immaterial. To it, all are equal and all are entitled to be treated equally. How is this equal treatment possible, if the State were to prefer or promote a particular religion, race, or caste, which necessarily means a less favourable treatment of all other religions, races, and castes? How are the Constitutional promises of social justice, liberty of belief, faith or worship, and equality of status and opportunity to be attained unless the State eschews the religion, faith, or belief of a person from its consideration altogether while dealing with him, his rights, his duties, and his entitlements?”((1994 3 SCC 1, 233.))

It’s relevant to note Nani A. Palkhivala’s response to the ruling in Indra Sawhney: “The basic structure of the Constitution envisages a cohesive, unified, casteless society. By breathing new life into casteism the judgment fractures the nation and disregards the basic structure of the Constitution. The decision would revitalize casteism, cleave the nation into two – forward and backward – and open up new vistas for internecine conflicts and fissiparous forces, and make backwardness a vested interest. It will undo whatever has been achieved since independence towards creating a unified, integrated nation. The majority judgments will revive casteism which the Constitution emphatically intended to end, and the pre-independence tragedy would be re-enacted with the roles reversed – the erstwhile underprivileged would now become the privileged.”((Nani A. Palkhivala, We, the Nation 179 (1994).))

As written in Prime Minister Nehru’s letter to the Chief Ministers: “The only real way to help a backward group is to give opportunities for a good education …. But if we go in for reservations on a communal and caste basis, we swamp the bright and able people and remain second-rate or third-rate…. It has amazed me to learn that even promotions are based sometimes on communal or caste considerations. This way lies not only folly but disaster. Let us help the backward groups by all means, but never at the cost of efficiency.”((Lai Narain Sinha, Indian Constitution – A Fresh Look 110-111 (1993).))

CONCLUSION

The disadvantaged classes cannot be let to be disadvantaged indefinitely. This is not permitted under the Constitution. The gap between the non-backward classes and the backward classes has to close as quickly as possible. To quickly advance the economic and educational interests of the weaker parts to realize the goal of a classless and casteless secular society, the governments of today appear to be unaware of the guiding principles of state policy. Reservations are like first aid; they are not a long-term solution to the enormous issue of backwardness. The best method to ensure that the backward classes remain forever behind is to ignore putting the directive principles of state policy into action. Fraternity continues to be an idealistic dream as a result of this widespread occurrence across the nation.

The Mandal Commission estimated the number of OBCs in India in 1979 using data from the 1931 caste census of British rule; still today, this information from eighty years ago is the sole empirical basis on which we base our reservations. The precise percentage of OBCs in India is not known; No nation can set job and education quotas for a disadvantaged portion of the population. The Union Cabinet agreed to separate the caste census from the normal population census on September 9, 2010, out of concern that the results might be exaggerated. This is a bad scenario because, in addition to the extra expense, caste statistics alone do not have any significance or relevance to the data gathered in a routine population census. Before we can truly consider solutions, we need a clear grasp of India’s caste problem.((10 judgments that changed India, Zia Mody.))

It is evident that in India, the discussion over reservations centres on who should benefit from them, not whether they should exist. However, at some point, decision-makers will have to address the more fundamental issue of how and when reservations might be phased out.