Understanding the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India Case: Impact on Reservation Policy
CITATION.: AIR 1993 SC 477
CORAM: M.H. Kania, J
M.N. Venkatachaliah, J
S. Ratnavel Pandian, J
Dr. T.K Thommen, J
A.M Ahmadi, J
Kuldip Singh, J
P.B Sawant, J
R.M Sahai, J
B.P Jeevan Reddy, J
NAME OF THE PARTIES: Indra Sawhney And Union of India
India’s policy of reservation is an issue that almost every Indian born post-Independence ponders over, criticises, utilises, or suffers from at some stage in life. The expression reservation referred to as positive discrimination- refers to justice granted to a person belonging to a historically disadvantaged class.
FACTS
On January 29, 1953, a Presidential Order established the Kaka Kalelkar Commission, the nation’s first backward class commission, in accordance with Article 340 of the Indian Constitution. When determining whether to classify a community as belonging to the backward class, the Commission recommended that consideration be given to various factors, including the community’s estimated population, distribution throughout the State, percentage of literacy and general education advancement, and traditional occupation and profession. The Commission gave in its report on March 30, 1955. Based on criteria developed by the Commission, 2399 castes were identified as socially and educationally backward; nevertheless, the Central Government rejected the Commission’s 1961 report.
The supreme court’s supervisory rule for monitoring the extent of reservation in states across India began with the judgement M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore . In 1962 Mysore issued an order reserving 68% seats for SC, ST and OBC in engineering and medical colleges. 23 petitions challenged the order stating that the extravagant quota was fraud. Interpreting Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the constitution of India. The Supreme court balanced the competing interests and uplifting deprived class by affirming that reservation shall not exceed 50% limit, it also said that caste is an important criteria but not the sole criteria to ascertain social backwardness. In case of the State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas , a few judges were of the opinion that the extent of reservation may exceed the 50% limit in proportion with the actual population of backward classes.
The second commission on backward classes, with Sri B.P. Mandal as its chairperson was appointed on January 1, 1979 by the Janata Dal, led by Prime Minister Moraji Desai. Its duties included defining the criteria for socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) and assessing whether or not it was desirable to reserve seats in public services and posts for members of these backward classes and Indian citizens.
The panel primarily used caste as the criterion for reservation in government posts when it issued its report on December 31, 1980. A recommendation was made to reserve a quota of 27% for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and identified about 3743 castes as SEBCs. The commission’s proposals were discussed in Parliament between 1980 to 1990, but the report was never put into practice. Meanwhile, the government fell because of internal party strife, making it impossible to carry out the commission’s recommendations. The Congress government, led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, then took over at the centre.
Several sections of the society sharply criticised the Mandal Commission’s recommendations and questioned its fundamental methodology for relying on caste figures dating from 1931 to set the OBC population at 52%.
Prime Minister V.P. Singh issued an Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated August 13, 1990, after the Janata Dal regained power in 1989. This memo implemented the Mandal Commission’s recommendation of 27% quotas for OBCs in public service and an additional 10% of vacancies reserved for ‘other economically backward sections of the people for whom there was no current reservation plan in place.
This announcement provoked violence, protest and rioting, particularly in northern India. Students boycotted classes, blocked traffics, hijacked buses. One of the most horrific incidents was a student of Delhi University, he doused himself with petrol and attempted self-immolation, this sparkes a series of self-immolation by students protesting the implementation of the Mandal Commission report.
Two office of memorandum were issued to implement some of the mandal commission’s reports relating to public employment.
Journalist Indra Sawhney launched a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) arguing that these memorandums were unconstitutional. The PIL was filed alongside multiple other writ petitions contesting the office memos’ constitutionality in light of Article 16 of the constitution of India.
JUDGEMENT
A nine judge bench of the supreme court which was the largest bench ever constituted to hear the case of reservation. The judgement was divided into the ratio of 6:3. Recognizing that caste had become the ‘cancer cell’ of Hindu society and the ‘biggest curse’ for India The court highlighted that position in Hindu caste hierarchy should be used as criteria to determine if a class could be classified as backward. In case of non-hindu the backwardness would be assessed on the basis of non-caste factors, such as income and education.
Dr. Ambedkar emphatically declared that reservation should be confined to ‘a minority of seats’, lest the very concept of equality should be destroyed. In view of its great importance, the full text of his speech delivered in the Constituent Assembly on the point is appended to this judgement.
One of the most serious concerns of the policy of reservation was that the prosperous members of the backward classes did not exploit the system intended to benefit the disadvantaged. The court said that those who form the ‘creamy layer’ of OBCs should be excluded from the reservation, persons with gross annual income of certain limit should not be allowed in reserved category, moreover children whose parents held important positions should not be permitted to avail reservation.
The court found that the 10% quota for economically backward persons was unconstitutional. It recognized the 50% ceiling limit on reservation laid down in Balaji v. State of Mysore . The Mandal Commission’s conclusions that reservations should not only be used for appointments but also for promotions were also rejected by the court.
Lastly, the court said that there should be commissions on the centre and state levels to decide whether the community should be included in backward classes.
Dissenting opinion: what is sought to be identified for the purpose of reservation is not caste or religion, but poverty and backwardness caused by historical discrimination and its continuing evil effects. Caste may be a guide in this search, just as occupation or residence may be a guide, but what is sought to be identified is none but backwardness stemming from historical discrimination.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court uses ‘Parliamentary History’ as the external aid of construction for resolving ambiguity. Parliamentary history includes the debates on the Bill in the proceeding, statement of objects and reasons accompanying a legislative bill and reports of commission, inquiry committee, joint parliamentary committee.
In this case while interpreting the Article 16(4) of the constitution of India Supreme Court referred to the speech of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly and observed that the debates in the Constituent Assembly could be relied upon as an aid to interpretation of a constitutional provision borne out by a series of decisions of this court. Since the expression ‘backward classes’ is not defined anywhere, reference to such debates is permissible to ascertain at any rate the context, background and objective behind them . Especially in cases when the court wishes to determine the original intent.
The principle of harmonious construction involves interpreting different provisions of a statute or constitutional provisions in a manner that they harmonise with each other and do not lead to any conflict. In the context of this case, the Supreme Court had to interpret Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution, which provide for reservations for socially and educationally backward classes, in harmony with other provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law.
The Court aimed to reconcile the goals of affirmative action with the broader principles of equality and non-discrimination. By interpreting these provisions harmoniously, the Court sought to ensure that reservations served their intended purpose of uplifting marginalised communities while also upholding the overarching principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution.
Additionally, the Court may have also relied on other principles of interpretation, such as the principle of purposive interpretation, which involves interpreting statutes or constitutional provisions in a manner that fulfils their underlying purpose or objective. In this case, the Court likely interpreted the provisions relating to reservations with the overarching goal of promoting social justice and inclusive development.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the Supreme Court’s interpretation in the Indra Sawhney case demonstrates the application of various principles of statutory interpretation, particularly the principle of harmonious construction, to reconcile conflicting provisions and uphold the broader constitutional principles of equality and social justice.
Author: Astha Shukla
References:
- Zia Mody: “10 Judgements that changed India”, Chapter 6, page 117
- AIR 1963 SC 649
- Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
- Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
- AIR 1985 SC 490
- Nagarajan ‘compensatory discrimination in India’ p. 483
- Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment
- Kuldeep Singh’s judgement in Indra Sawhney
- Indra Sawhney judgement para 251
- AIR 1963 SC 649
- J T. K Thommen, judgement in Indra Sawhney
- Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
- Indra Sawhney judgement, para 396
Link to the Judgement: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1363234/
Link to similar articles: https://jpassociates.co.in/waqf-amendment-bill-2024/
