Indra Sawhney Case - Important SC Judgements When our own Constitution was framed the framer of the constitution made a special provision with intention to provide equal opportunity in the public employment to all the citizens within INDIA. The same was inserted in the Art. 16 of the Indian Constitution. But considering the backward classes a special provision was inserted in the same Art. In clause 4 i.e., in Art. 16(4). This section empowers the State to make a special provision for those backward classes who in the opinion of the State are not adequately represented in the service under the State. The Indra Sawhney case was decided by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in 1992. The case is famous for decisively laying down several landmark propositions such as 50% threshold in reservations, the bar against reservations in certain types of posts, the exclusion of ‘creamy layer’[3] etc.[4]. This piece is, however, limited to the debate on using caste as a factor in determining the backwardness of a group and how Indra Sawhney settled this debate to change the course of India’s reservation jurisprudence and policy forever.
Judgements The 9 judges Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by 6:3 majority gave the following judgement: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Backward class of citizen in Article 16(4) can be identified on the basis of the caste system and 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 and 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 and more backward classes. A backward class of citizens cannot be identified only and 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.