indra sawhney v. union of india

8/12/2019 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India

1/10

INDRA SAWHNEY v. UNION OF INDIA

AIR 1993 SC 477

Ankita Dhar

II BBA.LLBB

1216406


2/10

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1953First Backward Classes Commission (Kaka Kalelkar

Commission) set up under Art. 340.

1961Govt. of India rejected the same.

1979Second Backward Classes Commission, set up by the President

under Art. 340(1). Report under examination till 1990.

7 August, 1990The then PM V.P. Singh announced the acceptance of

the Mandal Commission recommendation of 27% reservation in govt.

jobs.

13 August, 1990 - First Office of Memorandum27% reservation for

socially and economically backward classescastes and communities

common to Mandal Commission Report and the States.


3/10

Prime Minister P.V. Narshima Rao issued another Office ofMemorandum

i) Preference within 27% to the poorest section of the SEBCs.

ii) 10% for economically backward sections not covered bythe existing schemes of reservations.

Widespread student unrest and riots in every part of the

country.

11 September, 1990The Supreme Court transferred to

itself all the writ petitions challenging the implementation.


4/10

BROAD ISSUES EXAMINED:

Scope and extent of Art. 16(1) and 16(4) of the Constitution of

India.

Definitive parameters of the term backward class of

citizens.

The identification criteria applicable.

Nature and extent of reservation permissible.


5/10

JUDGEMENT:

The 9 judges Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by 6-3 majority

gave the following judgements:-

Backward class of citizen in Article 16(4) can be identified on the

basis of the caste system & not only on economic basis.

Article 16(4) is not an exception of Article 16(1). It is an instance of

the classification. Reservation can be made under article 16(1).

Backward classes in Article 16(4) were not similar to as socially &

educationally backward in article 15(4).

Creamy layer must be excluded from the backward classes.

Article 16(4) permits classification of backward classes into

backward & more backward classes.


6/10

A backward class of citizens cannot be identified only &

exclusively with reference to economic criteria. Reservation shall not exceed 50%.

Reservation can be made by the EXECUTIVE ORDER.

No reservation in promotion.

Permanent Statutory body to examine complains of over

inclusion / underinclusion.

Majority held that there is no need to express any opinion on the

correctness or adequacy of the exercise done by the MANDAL

COMMISSION.

Disputes regarding new criteria can be raised only in the

Supreme Court.


7/10

AFTERMATH OF THE CASE:

Subsequently three Constitutional amendments were made.

1. The Constitution 77thAmendment in 1995:- by this amendment a

new clause was inserted under Article 16 i.e., Article 16(4 - A).

Which empowers the State to make to make a provision forreservation in matter of promotion to any class or classes of posts in

the service of the State in favour of the SC & ST?

2. The Constitution 81stAmendment in 2000:- by this amendment a

new clause (4B) was inserted under Article 16. By this amendment

it was fixed that reservation can exceed above 50% reservation for

SC, ST & BC if backlog vacancies which could not be filled up in

the previous years due to the non-availability of eligible candidates.


8/10

3. The Constitution 85th

Amendment in 2001:- by this amendment theword in the matter of promotion to any classes were substituted by

the words in the matter of promotion with consequential seniority, to

any classes in Art. 16(4A).


9/10

CONCLUSION

The decision of this case no doubtedly laid down a workable &

reasonable solution to the reservation problem. But inspite of

that the political parties are still trying the dilute the effect of thedecision of this case with intention to political gain.

As seen above, three Constitutional amendments were made.

These types of acts on behalf of the Govt. clearly indicates that

with intention to gain huge vote banks by curtailing its effect the

ruling party has tried to manipulate and by pass the decision

made by the Supreme Court in this case.


10/10

THANK YOU

indra sawhney v. union of india

Documents