Introduction
For a long time in India, the issue of reservation has been a major concern. It has seen times when educational and employment differentiation was based on rank, class edifying, money allied, and social standing rather than open competition and merit. The current case is noteworthy in the sense that it demonstrates that standing and other such related indecencies should never be used as the basis for achieving such a respectable goal, as it not only disrupts the general public’s essential amicable texture, but also creates an unnecessary gap between the deserving and the non-deserving, a hindrance that is difficult to characterize. The Indian Constitution was written with the goal of providing equal rights to all citizens of the country. However, as time passed, the country was exposed to numerous judgments that influenced India’s laws. The Supreme Court, like all of us, has seen how reservations are fundamentally hostile to exemplary, but it has been upheld on numerous occasions[1] for the sake of a cost that the country must pay to achieve balance. However, because the vast majority of our population is still backward, reservations have been seen as a necessity.
Kalekar Commission
Reservation for Backward Classes (BCs) was implemented in most of the area comprising the Presidencies and Princely States south of the Vindhyas many years before Independence. When India gained independence in 1947, the government took affirmative action to provide benefits to the Depressed Class, Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs). However, there was no list of the country’s Other Backward Classes (OBC), which were not as backward as the ST and SC castes. However, these classes were treated as second-class citizens in society, and they continued to lag behind the upper crust. On 29 January 1953 India’s first Backward Classes Commission was established to address this issue.
On January 29, 1953, the Government of India established a Backward Classes Commission under Article 340[2] of the Constitution, in response to demands for reservation and other benefits for Backward Classes in other parts of India and at the Centre. “To investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes within the territory of India and the difficulties under which they labour, and to make recommendations as to the steps that should be taken by the Union or any State to remove difficulties and improve their conditions,” the Commission, also known as the Kaka Kalelkar Commission, was given the task with.[3] On March 30, 1955, the Commission submitted its report. The government considered it for the next half-decade before rejecting it in 1961.
Mandal Commission
On January 1, 1979, the Indian government appointed the Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission). The commission was established by the Janata Dal, which was led by then-Prime Minister Morarji Desai. B. P. Mandal, a Member of Parliament (MP), presided over the commission, which was termed the Mandal Commission. It was established to investigate the conditions of the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes and to recommend criteria for defining such classes of citizens, as well as steps to be taken for their advancement, and to assess the desirability or otherwise of making provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of such backward classes of citizens who are not adequately represented in public life. On December 31, 1980, the Commission submitted its report.
The commission created 11-point social, economic, and educational indicators to determine the backward classes. The caste that received all 11 points was thought to be a socially and educationally backward group. On December 31, 1980, the commission submitted their report to the President, listing 3743 castes as SEBCs. In addition, the report recommended a 27 percent reservation quota for these OBCs in public services. Non-Hindu groups were also identified as having backward classes by the commission. However, because the Janata Party’s government fell apart, they were unable to carry out these recommendations.
Indra Sawhney vs Union of India[4]
The Janata Party, led by Prime Minister V. P. Singh at the time, reclaimed power in 1989. The Prime Minister promised the people that if he was elected, he would implement the Mandal Commission’s recommendations. The Mandal Commission’s recommendations would be implemented, Prime Minister V P Singh announced in Parliament in 1990. Many students set themselves on fire in protest, and a few people died as a result of the announcement, which sparked violent protests across India, especially in the north and west. Despite strong opposition, the issue of OBC reservation reached the Supreme Court in 1992. This case is known as the ‘Indra Sawhney Judgment’ or the Mandal Commission Case.
Facts of The Case
In October 1990, a Writ Petition was filed challenging the Office Memoranda’s validity. Later, the Janata Party collapsed again, and Narasimha Rao was elected. He implemented economic criteria, giving priority to the poorer sections of the Social and Educationally Backward classes, and introducing 10% reservations for the Educationally Backward classes of the Higher Caste people. Because of the importance of the matter, the five-judge bench referred it to a special Constitution Bench of nine judges to finally settle the legal position on the reservation. The constitutional validity of the memorandum was eventually called into question by the Supreme Court in a series of writ petitions. A nine-judge panel considered the memorandum’s constitutional validity.
Issues Raised
- Is the classification made on the basis of caste or economics?
- Is Article 16(4) an exception or not to Article 16(1)?
- Whether the socially and educationally backward classes in Article 16(4) are similar to the socially and educationally backward classes in Article 15(4) or not?
- Is the classification of Backward Class and Most Backward Class as Backward Class and Most Backward Class valid?
Judgement
The Supreme Court of India’s 9-judge bench delivered a landmark decision on the issue of OBC reservation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had thoroughly examined every possible investigation.
The Court makes the important recommendation that the “creamy layer,” or the socially advanced members of a backward class, be excluded from reservation benefits. Such exclusion would benefit the truly backward people and thus serve the purpose of Art. 16 (4) more effectively. J. Reddy has argued that economic exclusion should not be the sole basis for exclusion, unless, of course, “economic advancement is so high that it inevitably means social advancement.” The court reasoned that this would eliminate the creamy layer among the socially and Economically Backward Classes. However, the provision allowing for a 10% reservation for economically disadvantaged people was struck down by the court.[5] The following was decided by the 6:3 ratio:
- Under Article 16(4) backward classes were not as socially and educationally backward as Article 15 (4) backward classes.
- The backward classes must be excluded from the creamy layer.
- Backward classes can be classified into backward and more backward classes under Article 16(4).
- A backward class of citizen cannot be identified solely on the basis of financial criteria.
- The number of reservations should not exceed 50%.
- The Executive Order can be used to make a reservation.
- In the promotion, there are no reservations.
- Permanent statutory body to investigate complaints about over-inclusion and under-inclusion.
- The majority agreed that there was no need to express an opinion on the Mandal Commission’s accuracy or scope of work.
- Disputes over new criteria can only be brought before the Supreme Court.
- In most cases, the reservations made under Articles 16(1) and 16(4) combined should not exceed 50% of the appointments in a grade, unit, or administration in a given year.[6]
There are, however, some jobs where the occupants can be labeled as “socially advanced” without further investigation. As a result, when a member of a designated backward class joins the IAS, IPS, or any other All India Service, his social status rises; he no longer qualifies as socially disadvantaged. His children are given every opportunity to achieve their full potential. They are not hindered in any way in the race of life. He also has a salary that allows him to live comfortably. It’s only natural that his children would be denied the benefit of reservation in such a situation. Because granting them the benefit of reservation may deprive other disadvantaged members of that backward class of that benefit. Rather than establishing a final test to identify the ‘creamy layer,’ the Court has directed the Government to specify the basis of exclusion, whether based on income, holding size, or other factors. The purpose of this ruling is to ensure that the benefits of reservation reach the proper and weakest members of the backward class.
Conclusion
This is a noteworthy case concerning the reservation of positions in government occupations for residents of the Backward Class, and it illustrates the scope and extent of Article 16 (4)’s application . The Supreme Court of India attempted to determine the best course of action in this case. It has considered a number of complex but crucial issues affecting India’s future welfare and stability. It is a wise decision based on the balance of backward classes’ reservations in society.
According to the Supreme Court, the creamy layer’s exclusion from the reservation policy is intended to help those who are socially, educationally, and economically disadvantaged. While reiterating the importance of adhering to the 50 percent reservation ceiling and keeping the creamy layer out of its purview, it is asserted that the state must justify the compelling reasons for providing reservations in each case, keeping the overall efficiency of the state administration in mind. The Constitution’s founding figures made it clear that any enabling legislation that helps socially and economically “backward classes” cannot be based solely on caste.
Though it is shocking to see how today leading politicians have sneaked in “caste” as a major determinant of OBC status. Reservation in government services is essentially anti-meritocracy because when a candidate is appointed to a reserved post, a more meritorious candidate is inevitably excluded. However, reservation is now a reality, and it will continue to be the norm for many years to come. In the near future, society may find it difficult to abolish the reservation rule. However, the Court’s decision has prevented the reservation system from exploding and has mitigated some of its flaws.
References:
[1] Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649, State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490, Devadason v. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 179
[2] The Indian Constitution, 1950.
[3] National Commission for backward classes, (Aug, 23 , 2021 5:45PM) http://www.ncbc.nic.in/Writereaddata/AR%202012-13%20Pandey635705824205955927.pdf.
[4] Indra Sawhney v Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477.
[5] Hemant More, Mandal Commission Case, ( Aug. 23, 2021, 6:45PM),https://thefactfactor.com/facts/law/constitutional_law/mandal-commission-case/1223/.
[6] Smrutirekha Singh, Case Summary: Indra Sawhney Etc. vs. Union of India and Others 1992, (Aug, 24 , 2021, 9:50PM), https://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/case-summary-indra-sawhney-etc-vs-union-of-india-and-others-1992/26399.
0 Comments