INDRA SAWHNEY v.

UNION OF INDIA AIR 1993 SC 477

Ankita Dhar II BBA.LLB B 1216406

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1953 First Backward Classes Commission (Kaka Kalelkar

Commission) set up under Art. 340. 1961 Govt. of India rejected the same. 1979 Second Backward Classes Commission, set up by the President under Art. 340(1). Report under examination till 1990. 7 August, 1990 The 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 Memorandum 27% reservation for socially and economically backward classes castes and communities common to Mandal Commission Report and the States.

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

Memorandum i) Preference within 27% to the poorest section of the SEBCs. ii) 10% for economically backward sections not covered by the existing schemes of reservations. Widespread student unrest and riots in every part of the country. 11 September, 1990 The Supreme Court transferred to itself all the writ petitions challenging the implementation.

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.

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.

 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 / under inclusion. 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.

AFTERMATH OF THE CASE:

Subsequently three Constitutional amendments were made. 1. The Constitution 77th Amendment 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 for reservation 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 81st Amendment in 2000:- by this amendment a new clause (4 B) 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.

3. The Constitution 85th Amendment in 2001:- by this amendment the

word 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).

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 the

decision 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.

THANK YOU