CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF
INDRA SAWHNEY vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS CASE
LEGAL MEHTODS AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
THIS FINAL DRAFT IS SUBMITTED IN THE
FULFILLMENT OF THE RPOJECT IN LEGAL METHODS AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
FOR B.A. LL.B. (HONS.) FOR THE FIRST SEMESTER
SUBMITTED BY: ISHITA GUPTA
ROLL NUMBER: 23121
FIRST SEMESTER
SUBMITTED TO: MR. VIJAYANT SINHA
FACULTY OF LEGAL METHODS AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA
SEPTEMBER 2023
1
DECLARATION
I, Ishita Gupta hereby declare that the project work entitled “Critical Analysis of Indira Sawhney
& Others Case ” submitted at the Chanakya National Law University, Patna is my original piece
of research work conducted between August and September of the Year 2023.
In instances where the reference of other works has been cited, full acknowledgment has been
given to the original owner. I have not submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or
diploma. I am fully responsible for the content of this project.
Signature of Candidate
Ishita Gupta (23121)
B.A., LL. B (Hons.)
1st Semester
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This Project becomes a reality with the kind support and help of many individuals. I would like
to extend my sincere thanks to all of them.
Foremost I want to offer this endeavour to Goddess Saraswati for the wisdom she bestowed
upon me, the strength, peace of my mind, and good health to finish this project.
I would like to express my gratitude to my family for the encouragement which helped me in
the completion of this project. My beloved friends for always helping and guiding me during
the project work, especially with citations, research work, and articulation, and finally my
faculty of sociology, Mr Vijayant Sinha for his guidance and commitment to the success of
this project.
My thanks and appreciations also go to my colleague and people who have willingly helped
me out with their knowledge, abilities, and skills.
Thank You
Ishita Gupta
1st Semester
CNLU, Patna
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ................................................................................................................................... 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................................... 3
1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 5
A. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: - ................................................................................................... 6
B. HYPOTHESIS: - ....................................................................................................................... 6
C. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: -................................................................................................... 6
D. RESEARCH METHODOLGY: - ............................................................................................ 6
E. SOURCE OF DATA: - .............................................................................................................. 6
F. MODE OF CITATION: - .......................................................................................................... 6
2. THE CASE OF INDIRA SAWHNEY vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS 1992 .................... 7
3. ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST RESERVATION.......................................................... 11
4. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 13
5. BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 16
4
1. INTRODUCTION
A nine-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India resolved the Indra
Sawhney vs. Union of India & Others1 case, better known as the Mandal judgement, in
1992. It was a significant public interest litigation case. The government's plan to
reserve 27% of the seats for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government
positions was challenged as being unconstitutional. Because it went against the basic
right to equality provided by Article 142, the petitioners in the case challenged that the
constitutionality of the 27% seat reservation for OBCs. They further claimed that the
quota would result in reverse discrimination against the general category since the
government had not followed the proper procedure for identifying OBCs. On the other
side, the Indian government contended that affirmative action was essential for uplifting
marginalized communities and redressing long-standing societal inequalities.
The Mandal Commission which was formed on 1979 by the Janata Party and headed by
B.P. Mandal recommended reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in public
institutions to counteract historical disadvantages.
The government's decision to reserve 27% of seats for OBCs was upheld by the
Supreme Court, but it also established a number of guidelines for how the reservation
would be carried out. The "creamy layer" was excluded from reservation privileges,
reservations were subject to periodic review, and reservations were to be monitored to
prevent reverse discrimination. The Mandal decision was a landmark win for the OBCs
and altered India's social and political landscapes. The decision contributed to making
sure that OBCs had an equal opportunity to participate in education and jobs, and also
raised awareness of the problem of caste discrimination in India.
1
Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, (1996) 6 SCC 506.
2
INDIAN CONST. art. 14.
5
A. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: -
1. To study the case of Indra Sawhney & Others vs Union of India
2. To analyse the impact of Mandal verdict on Indian Society
3. To examine the implications of the judgment for the implementation of reservation in
India.
B. HYPOTHESIS: -
The researcher for the purpose of this study has taken the following assumption:
The project hypothesizes that the Indira Sawhney case played a crucial role in defining the
legal framework for reservations in India
C. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: -
1. What was the case of Indra Sawhney & Others vs. Union of India?
2. In what ways did the Indira Sawhney case influence subsequent legislations and
policies related to reservations?
3. What are the arguments for and against reservation?
D. RESEARCH METHODOLGY: -
The researcher has opted for doctrinal methods for conducting this research. The researcher
has taken books, research papers, judgement, journals for the pronouncement of this study.
E. SOURCE OF DATA: -
The researcher will be relying on secondary sources to complete the project.
• Books
• Blogs
• Magazines
• Journals
F. MODE OF CITATION: -
The researcher has followed Blue Book citation (20th edition) in this research.
6
2. THE CASE OF INDIRA SAWHNEY vs. UNION OF INDIA
& OTHERS 1992
The first backward class commission known as Kaka Kalelkar Commission was set up
on January 29, 1953 by a Presidential Order under Article 3403. The Commission
submitted its report on March 30, 1955, recommending that factors such as traditional
occupation and profession, percentage of literacy and general education advancement,
estimated population, and distribution throughout the State, have to be taken into
account for classifying a community as a backward class. But the Central Government
rejected the report of the Commission in 1961.
On January 1, 1979, the Janata Dal, headed by the Prime Minister Moraji Desai
appointed the second backward classes commission under the chairmanship of Sri B.P.
Mandal, for determining the criteria for defining 'socially and educationally backward
classes (SEBCs)'and to examine the desirability of providing for reservation in public
services and posts. The commission submitted its report on December 31, 1980, and it
relied almost exclusively on caste as the predominant criterion for reservation in
Government jobs. About 3743 castes were identified as SEBCs and recommended for
reservation of 27% quota for Other Backward Classes (OBC's). Due to internal
disturbance within the party, the Government collapsed and couldn't implement the
recommendations made by the commission and after that, the Congress Government
headed by the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi came to the power at the Centre. She didn't
implement the commission report till 1989.
In 1989, Janata Dal again came to the power and Prime Minister V.P. Singh issued an
Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated August 13, 1990, and implemented Mandal
Commission's recommendation of 27% quotas for OBCs in public service. and
3
INDIAN CONST. art. 340, cl. 1.
7
additional reservation of 10% vacancies for 'other economically backward sections of
the people' who were not covered by any existing scheme of reservation.
In retaliation anti- reservation movement rocked the nation at various places for three
months. A writ petition was filed from the Bar Association of the Supreme Court
challenging the validity of Office Memorandum issued by the Government. The case
was ultimately decided by the five judges bench. They issued a stay order till the final
disposal of the case on October 1, 1990.
The five judge's bench referred this matter to the nine judges bench who issued a notice
to the Government to show cause the criteria upon which the Government has proposed
to make 27% reservation for them and adjudicate on complex constitutional questions
involving the interpretation of Article 164.
The petitioner, in this case, was basically motivated against this reservation of 27%, and
the same was challenged against various states in various courts. Issues, in this case,
were framed by the special bench with nine judges are as follows.5
The four main issues among many of the issues that were framed by the Supreme court
of India. They are:
▪ Whether the ‘creamy layer’ in the society shall be excluded from the current
backward class reservation of 27% or not?
▪ Whether the reservation under article 16 clause 4 of the Indian Constitution
provides reservation only in the matters of initial appointments and direct
recruitment, or does it provide for matters relating to promotions also or not?
4
INDIAN CONST. art. 16, cl. 4.
5
LEGAL SERVICE INDIA, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3384-case-analysis-on-indra-sawhney-v-
union-of-india-and-ors.html (last visited Sep. 15, 2023).
8
▪ Can the reservation to backward classes be identified only on the ground of caste
or not?
▪ Lastly, whether the limit of 50% shall be exceeded in any exceptional cases or
not.6
Judgement:
▪ Firstly, with respect to the question of whether the creamy layer should be
excluded or not, it observed that if we term any group as a class, there should be
some of the elements that have to be common among them. In the case of
backward class as a group, the common element should be the social
backwardness in them which links that particular class. If there is any person
with a different element of the socially advanced element, then such shall not be
a connecting thread between them and shall disconnect that particular person
from the class. So, the court held that exclusion of such persons would enable
the true benefit to backward classes. The court gave an example as an illustration
of how a creamy layer should be excluded. Suppose a member of an IAS, IPS
services been given the opportunity under the reservation today as his societal
status as socially backward was considered. But, once he rises in his status, then
he will no longer be recognized as socially disadvantaged. His children should
not be brought under the purview to be realized as backward class. Thus, this
exclusion alone will bring a class under the ambit of the backward class and will
definitely ensure the purpose as mentioned under article 16(4)7.
▪ Secondly, the court observed that the reservation in cases of promotion was not
intended by article 16 of the Indian Constitution, and it will only apply to initial
appointments. It noted that this decision should apply only prospectively and not
6
BARE LAW, https://www.barelaw.in/know-about-case-brief-on-indra-sawhney-v-union-of-india-air-1993-sc-477/
(last visited Sep. 15, 2023).
7
supra note 4, at 8.
9
retrospectively, so the promotions made earlier on this ground, then such shall
not be affected. The court also held that if the authority thinks fit to include the
reservation relating to the direct recruitment and promotions, then such shall be
made for the necessary representations and to attain the objective under article
16(4) of the Indian Constitution.
▪ Another important question that was looked at by the court was that whether
caste can be a sole criterion or not. With respect to the same, it has been stated
that caste shall not be a sole criterion for the purpose of identification of the
socially and educationally backward class under Article 16(4). What is important
is that the caste should not be a dominant factor in that determination, but in the
case of an exceptional one, then taking the inadequate representation, caste can
be a relevant factor for the same.
▪ Lastly, it was also noted that the limit of 50% as set by previous cases should not
be exceeded in any way unless there is an exceptional case for which the
reservations should be increased, then it is not.8
8
supra note 6, at 8.
10
3. ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST RESERVATION
The Indira Sawhney judgment has had a significant impact on the reservation policy in
India. The Supreme Court's guidelines have helped to ensure that reservation is
implemented in a more fair and equitable manner. The judgment has also helped to
legitimize reservation as a policy tool to promote social justice and equality. The Indira
Sawhney judgment has led to an increase in the number of OBCs who are able to access
government jobs and educational institutions. This has helped to improve the social and
economic status of OBCs. It also helped to reduce caste discrimination in India. By
providing reservation for OBCs, the government has sent a strong message that caste
discrimination is unacceptable and helped to create a more inclusive society in India.
By increasing the representation of OBCs in government and educational institutions,
the judgment has helped to ensure that all groups have a voice in decision-making.
The Indira Sawhney judgment, also known as the Mandal Commission case, has been
a watershed moment in India's ongoing debate over reservations. Those in favour of
reservations argue that they are a vital tool for achieving social justice and rectifying
historical inequalities. By providing opportunities to historically marginalized
communities, reservations aim to create a more equitable society, enhance
representation, and foster diversity in educational institutions and workplaces. They see
these measures as a way to achieve better representation and foster diversity in key
institutions. Proponents highlight that these measures are not just constitutionally
mandated but also essential for addressing deeply ingrained discrimination. Reservation
helps to ensure diversity and representation in government and educational institutions.
This is important because it allows different voices and perspectives to be heard and
represented in decision-making. It also helps to create a more inclusive and
representative society.
11
However, reservations also face staunch opposition, with critics contending that they
compromise meritocracy and can lead to reverse discrimination, exacerbating social
tensions. The introduction of the "creamy layer" concept, aimed at ensuring that only
economically disadvantaged members of reserved categories benefit from reservations,
and concerns about efficiency and competence further fuel the anti-reservation
sentiment. Those who contend says that they undermine the principle of meritocracy,
asserting that candidates should be chosen based solely on their qualifications and
abilities. Reservation can be counterproductive in the long run, as it can create a
dependency mindset among the reserved categories. It can also lead to a situation where
people are employed or admitted to educational institutions on the basis of caste rather
than merit.
The Indira Sawhney judgment's legacy continues to shape India's policies and public
discourse on reservations. Striking a balance between promoting social justice and
maintaining a merit-based selection process remains a complex and contentious issue
in Indian society, highlighting the ongoing importance of this landmark case in the
country's socio-political landscape.
12
4. CONCLUSION
The case of Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India & others, commonly known as the
Mandal Commission case, represents a seminal moment in the discourse surrounding
reservations in India. The case arose from a complex socio-political landscape, where
the Indian government's decision to provide reservations to the Other Backward Classes
(OBCs) in government jobs and educational institutions faced legal scrutiny. The
petitioners challenged the constitutionality of these reservations, leading to a protracted
legal battle that culminated in the 1992 Supreme Court judgment.
The judgment, while upholding the constitutionality of reservations for OBCs,
introduced several crucial guidelines. The most significant among them was the 50%
cap on total reservations. This limitation recognized the need to strike a balance between
providing opportunities to historically marginalized communities and maintaining
meritocracy. The introduction of the "creamy layer" concept aimed to ensure that only
the economically disadvantaged within reserved categories benefit, preventing the
entrenchment of privilege.
Moreover, the judgment underscored the importance of empirical data and evidence in
identifying backward classes and assessing their entitlement to reservations. It also
recognized the autonomy of educational institutions in implementing reservations,
emphasizing that the overall framework should be adhered to while allowing flexibility
in the specific modalities.
The arguments in favour of reservations rest on the principles of social justice, historical
discrimination, and representation. Reservations are seen as a necessary corrective
measure to address centuries of systemic oppression and inequality. They provide
historically marginalized communities with opportunities for advancement and
participation in key institutions. Additionally, diversity resulting from reservations can
13
enrich the learning environment and contribute to a more inclusive society. The
constitutional mandate for reservations further bolsters the case in favour of this policy.
Conversely, arguments against reservations revolve around the idea of meritocracy and
concerns about reverse discrimination. Critics argue that candidates should be selected
solely based on their qualifications and abilities, rather than their caste or social
background. The "creamy layer" concept was introduced in response to these concerns
but has faced challenges in implementation. Critics also worry that reservations may
lead to social tensions and division, and they question the overall efficiency and
competence of institutions where reservations are in place.
It is also crucial to consider how India's reservation policies can evolve to address these
concerns and challenges effectively. Firstly, there is a need for a continued emphasis on
collecting and analysing empirical data to identify and periodically review the status of
backward classes. This will help in ensuring that reservations are targeted at those who
genuinely need them and that they do not perpetuate backwardness.
Secondly, it is essential to strike a balance between social justice and meritocracy. While
reservations are a vital tool for addressing historical inequalities, they should not
compromise the quality and efficiency of institutions. Therefore, stringent selection
criteria and rigorous evaluation processes should be maintained alongside reservations
to ensure that candidates are qualified for the positions they occupy.
Moreover, there must be a sustained effort to create an inclusive and equitable society
beyond reservations. Investments in education, healthcare, and skill development for
marginalized communities can go a long way in addressing the root causes of social
inequality.
14
In conclusion, the Indira Sawhney case and the subsequent guidelines set by the
Supreme Court have played a pivotal role in shaping India's reservation policies. This
critical analysis has highlighted the complexities and nuances of this issue, showcasing
the arguments for and against reservations. While reservations are an important
instrument for social justice, it is imperative to strike a balance that ensures meritocracy
and addresses concerns about their implementation. Moving forward, a comprehensive
approach that includes data-driven policies, targeted investments, and a commitment to
social equality can help India create a more just and inclusive society.
15
5. BIBLIOGRAPHY
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/indra-sawhney-v-union-of-india-and-ors-1992-case-analysis/
• https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1457/Indra-Sawhney-&-Others-Vs.Union-of-
India.html
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/unswayed-thoughts/indra-sawhney-and-
others-v-s-the-union-of-india-43064/
• http://www.ncbc.nic.in/Writereaddata/Vol2.pdf
• https://www.barelaw.in/know-about-case-brief-on-indra-sawhney-v-union-of-india-air-1993-
sc-477/
16
17
