Law and You > Constitutional Law > Mandal Commission Case

In Indra Sawhney v Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 case also popularly known as the Mandal Commission Case, the Supreme Court dealt with various aspects of the complex issue of reservation and gave out a very thoughtful judgment.

Background:

On January 1, 1979 the Government headed by the Prime Minister Sri Morarji Desai appointed the Second Backward Classes Commission under Article 340 of the Constitution under the Chairmanship of Sri B.P. Mandal (MP) to “study the condition and representation of socially or educationally backward castes” and recommend steps for their advancement, including desirability for making provisions for reservation of seats for them in Government jobs.

The Mandal Commission concluded that there are 3743 castes in India which are socially and educationally backward classes. India’s population consisted of approximately 16 percent non- Hindus, 17.5 percent Brahmans and “forward castes,” 44 percent “other backward classes,” and 22.5 percent scheduled castes and tribes. However, since the 16 percent non-Hindus presumably included approximately the same proportion of “other backward classes” as did the Hindus (i.e., another 8%), the total proportion of “other backward classes” (Hindu and non-Hindu) came to 52 percent (44% + 8%) of India’s population, therefore 27% government jobs should be reserved for them.

In the meantime, the Janata Government collapsed due to internal dissensions and the Congress Party headed by the Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi came to power at the Centre. The Congress Government did not implement the Mandal Commissioner report until 1989. In 1989 the Congress Party was defeated in the Parliamentary elections and the Janta Dal again came to power and decided to implement the Commission’s report as it had promised to the electorate. Accordingly, the Government of India, headed by Prime Minister Sri V.P. Singh issued the Office Memoranda on August 13, 1990, reserving 27 percent seat for backward classes in Government services on the basis of the recommendations of the Mandal Commission.

The acceptance of the report of the Mandal Commission created a turmoil and a violent anti-reservation movement throughout the nation for nearly three months. Meantime the Janta Government again collapsed due to defections and in 1991 Parliamentary elections the Congress party headed by p. V. Narsiha Rao as P.M. again came to power at the Centre. This Government issued new Office Memoranda with a change that the 27% reservation quota for backward classes and the government notification reserving 10% government jobs for economically backward classes among the higher castes. It was challenged in the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney Case of 1992.

In Indra Sawhney v Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 case on 16 November 1992, the Supreme Court upheld the Mandal Commission’s 27 percent quota for backward classes, as well as the principle that the combined scheduled-caste, scheduled-tribe, and backward-class beneficiaries should not exceed 50 percent of India’s population. At the same time, the Court also struck down the government notification reserving 10% government jobs for economically backward classes among the higher castes.

Some of the key aspects of the judgment are-

1. The majority held that a caste can be and quite often is a social class in India and if it is backward socially, it would be a backward class for the purpose of Article 16(4).
2. Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1), but an independent clause. Article 16(4) is exhaustive of the subject of reservation in favour of backward classes, though it may not be exhaustive of the very concept of reservation. Reservation for other classes can be made under Article 16(1).
3. Article 16(4) permits classification of Backward Classes into backward and more backward classes (overruled Balaji Case and upheld N. M. Thomas Case in this respect).
4. Backward classes referred to in Article 16(4) not the same as the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes referred to under Article 15(5).
5. The majority held that while identifying the backward classes the socially advanced persons – the creamy layer, among them, being excluded, for the purpose of giving the benefit of reservation.
6. The majority held that Article 16(4) permits classification of backward classes into backward and more backward classes, for the purpose of giving more protection to more backward class people.
7. The majority held that a backward class of citizens cannot be identified only and exclusively with reference to economic criteria.
8. The majority held that the maximum limit of reservation cannot exceed 50%. However, in extraordinary situations, it may be relaxed in favour of people living in remote, far-flung areas of the country.
9. The majority held that the reservation can be made by executive order. If need be made by Parliament or state legislature.
10. Reservation shall not exceed the 50 percent limit. Carry forward rule is valid provided it should not result in the breach of the 50 percent rule. (upheld the judgment in Balaji Case and overruled N. M. Thomas Case in this respect).
11. Reservation in appointments under Article 16(4) confined to initial appointments only. There shall be no reservation in promotion.
12. The court directed the Union Government, State Governments and
    Union Territories to appoint a permanent statutory body to examine complaints of wrong inclusion or non-inclusion of groups, classes and
    sections in the list of other backward classes.
13. The majority made it clear and directed that all objections to the criteria evolved by the Central Government and State Government to exclude socially advanced persons creamy layer from other backward classes, shall be filed only before the Supreme Court and not before any High Court or Tribunal.

Post Mandal Commission Case Scenario:

In the aftermath of the Mandal Commission Judgment, Clause (4A) was added in Article 16 by way of the Seventy-Seventh Amendment Act, 1995 providing for reservation in the matters of promotion.

Clause (4B) was added in Article 16 by way of the Eighty-First Amendment Act, 2000 to seek to end the 50% ceiling on reservation for SC’s/ST’s and BC’s in backlog vacancies which could not be filled up in the previous years due to the non-availability of eligible candidates.

This Article was further amended by the Eighty-Fifth Amendment Act, 2001adding the words ‘in the matters of promotion with consequential seniority’ retrospectively from 17-06-1995

For More Articles on Constitutional Law Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here