Enhanced/Extended Relationship-Diagram Indra Budi [email protected].
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
-
Upload
ankita-dhar -
Category
Documents
-
view
252 -
download
2
Transcript of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
-
8/12/2019 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
1/10
INDRA SAWHNEY v. UNION OF INDIA
AIR 1993 SC 477
Ankita Dhar
II BBA.LLBB
1216406
-
8/12/2019 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
2/10
FACTS OF THE CASE:
1953First Backward Classes Commission (Kaka Kalelkar
Commission) set up under Art. 340.
1961Govt. of India rejected the same.
1979Second Backward Classes Commission, set up by the President
under Art. 340(1). Report under examination till 1990.
7 August, 1990The then PM V.P. Singh announced the acceptance of
the Mandal Commission recommendation of 27% reservation in govt.
jobs.
13 August, 1990 - First Office of Memorandum27% reservation for
socially and economically backward classescastes and communities
common to Mandal Commission Report and the States.
-
8/12/2019 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
3/10
Prime Minister P.V. Narshima Rao issued another Office ofMemorandum
i) Preference within 27% to the poorest section of the SEBCs.
ii) 10% for economically backward sections not covered bythe existing schemes of reservations.
Widespread student unrest and riots in every part of the
country.
11 September, 1990The Supreme Court transferred to
itself all the writ petitions challenging the implementation.
-
8/12/2019 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
4/10
BROAD ISSUES EXAMINED:
Scope and extent of Art. 16(1) and 16(4) of the Constitution of
India.
Definitive parameters of the term backward class of
citizens.
The identification criteria applicable.
Nature and extent of reservation permissible.
-
8/12/2019 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
5/10
JUDGEMENT:
The 9 judges Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by 6-3 majority
gave the following judgements:-
Backward class of citizen in Article 16(4) can be identified on the
basis of the caste system & 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 &
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 & more backward classes.
-
8/12/2019 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
6/10
A backward class of citizens cannot be identified only &
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 / underinclusion.
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.
-
8/12/2019 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
7/10
AFTERMATH OF THE CASE:
Subsequently three Constitutional amendments were made.
1. The Constitution 77thAmendment in 1995:- by this amendment a
new clause was inserted under Article 16 i.e., Article 16(4 - A).
Which empowers the State to make to make a provision forreservation in matter of promotion to any class or classes of posts in
the service of the State in favour of the SC & ST?
2. The Constitution 81stAmendment in 2000:- by this amendment a
new clause (4B) was inserted under Article 16. By this amendment
it was fixed that reservation can exceed above 50% reservation for
SC, ST & BC if backlog vacancies which could not be filled up in
the previous years due to the non-availability of eligible candidates.
-
8/12/2019 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
8/10
3. The Constitution 85th
Amendment in 2001:- by this amendment theword in the matter of promotion to any classes were substituted by
the words in the matter of promotion with consequential seniority, to
any classes in Art. 16(4A).
-
8/12/2019 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
9/10
CONCLUSION
The decision of this case no doubtedly laid down a workable &
reasonable solution to the reservation problem. But inspite of
that the political parties are still trying the dilute the effect of thedecision of this case with intention to political gain.
As seen above, three Constitutional amendments were made.
These types of acts on behalf of the Govt. clearly indicates that
with intention to gain huge vote banks by curtailing its effect the
ruling party has tried to manipulate and by pass the decision
made by the Supreme Court in this case.
-
8/12/2019 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
10/10
THANK YOU