1. What is the Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India Case all about?
The Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India case in 1992, also known as the Mandal Commission case, addressed the issue of reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public employment. The case arose from the recommendations of the Mandal Commission, which suggested a 27% reservation for OBCs in central government jobs and educational institutions. The case examined the constitutional validity of these reservations and the extent to which affirmative action could be applied.
2. Facts of the Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India Case Relevant for UPSC
- Parties Involved:
- Indra Sawhney and others (petitioners)
- Union of India (respondent)
- Legal Questions:
- Whether the reservation of 27% for OBCs in central government jobs and educational institutions, as recommended by the Mandal Commission, is constitutionally valid.
- Whether the concept of “creamy layer” within the OBCs should be excluded from the benefits of reservation.
- The permissible extent of reservations in public employment under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution.
- Noteworthy Events:
- The Mandal Commission, established in 1979, recommended a 27% reservation for OBCs in addition to the existing reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
- The implementation of the Mandal Commission recommendations in 1990 led to widespread protests and legal challenges.
- Indra Sawhney and others filed petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the OBC reservations.
3. What are the Major Judgements/Changes Brought by Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India Case?
The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement with profound implications for the reservation policy in India:
- The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 27% reservation for OBCs in central government jobs and educational institutions, provided that the total reservations do not exceed 50% of the available seats.
- It introduced the concept of the “creamy layer” within the OBCs, ruling that individuals from the “creamy layer” (those who are economically advanced) should be excluded from the benefits of reservation to ensure that affirmative action reaches the truly disadvantaged sections.
- The judgement clarified that reservations in promotions are not permissible under Article 16(4) of the Constitution.
- It emphasized that reservations are intended to be temporary measures and must be reviewed periodically.
4. What was the Impact of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India Case on Indian Constitution?
- Affirmation of Reservation Policy: The judgement affirmed the constitutionality of reservations for OBCs, reinforcing the government’s ability to implement affirmative action policies to promote social equality.
- Introduction of Creamy Layer Concept: By introducing the concept of the “creamy layer,” the Court aimed to ensure that reservations benefit the most disadvantaged within the OBCs, preventing misuse by economically advanced individuals.
- Limitation on Extent of Reservations: The ruling established that the total reservations in public employment and educational institutions cannot exceed 50%, ensuring a balance between affirmative action and merit-based selection.
- Clarification on Promotions: The judgement clarified that reservations do not apply to promotions, impacting how affirmative action is implemented within the civil services.
5. Was this Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India Case Challenged/Reversed in Future?
The principles established in the Indra Sawhney case have been upheld in subsequent legal proceedings and continue to guide the implementation of reservation policies in India. The judgement remains a key reference for understanding the scope and limits of affirmative action under the Indian Constitution.
6. Doctrines/Theories/New Concepts
- Doctrine of Creamy Layer Exclusion: The case introduced the principle that economically advanced individuals within the OBCs should be excluded from reservation benefits to ensure that affirmative action reaches the truly disadvantaged.
- 50% Cap on Reservations: The judgement established that the total percentage of reservations should not exceed 50% of the available seats, ensuring a balance between reservations and merit-based selection.
- Periodic Review of Reservations: The Court emphasized that reservations are temporary measures and must be reviewed periodically to assess their relevance and effectiveness in achieving social equality.