{"id":93508,"date":"2021-03-10T10:32:14","date_gmt":"2021-03-10T05:02:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.forumias.com\/?p=93508"},"modified":"2021-03-10T10:32:14","modified_gmt":"2021-03-10T05:02:14","slug":"revisiting-the-ruling-of-indra-sawhney-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/revisiting-the-ruling-of-indra-sawhney-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Revisiting the Ruling of Indra Sawhney Case"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Synopsis:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court is examining the constitutional validity of the Maratha reservation policy. During the hearing, it mentioned that it will re-examine the landmark verdict in the Indra Sawhney vs Union of India<\/strong> case 1992.<\/p>\n

What is the Indra Sawhney Case?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
    \n
  1. The Mandal Commission- <\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \n
    • In 1979 the Second Backward Classes Commission was set up by the President.<\/li>\n
    • The commission report concluded 52% of the population in India are \u201cSocially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBCs)\u201d. Further, the commission recommended a 27% reservation for SEBCs. This reservation is provided in addition to the previously existing 22.5% reservation for SC\/STs.<\/li>\n
    • The government accepted the recommendation and provided the 27% reservation.<\/li>\n
    • In 1991, the government enacted provisions for the reservation of 10% of jobs for economically weaker sections (EWS) among higher caste people.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
        \n
      1. Indra Sawhney vs UOI case or The Mandal case:<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
          \n
        • The Mandal Commission report and the government’s decision to reserve 10 percent for the EWS was challenged in the Supreme Court.<\/li>\n
        • A nine-judge Bench gave their verdict in 1992.<\/li>\n
        • The important intervention of the case includes,\n
            \n
          • First, <\/strong>the criterion for a group to qualify for reservation is social and educational backwardness only. So, the 10 percent reservation to the EWS becomes unconstitutional.<\/li>\n
          • Second, a <\/strong>50% limit to vertical quotas will apply to ensure efficiency in administration unless in exceptional circumstances<\/strong>. The court in its earlier judgments like M R Balaji v\/s State of Mysore (1963) and Devadasan v\/s UOI (1964) also mentioned the 50 percent reservation limit.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
            Why is the Supreme Court revisiting the Mandal case (Indra Sawhney Case)<\/strong>?<\/strong><\/h5>\n
              \n
            • In 2018, the Maharastra government enacted a law to provide 16 percent reservation to the Maratha community in jobs and admissions. This violated the 50 percent ceiling<\/strong> mentioned by the Mandal case.<\/li>\n
            • But, the Bombay High Court<\/strong> upheld the validity of the quota. But the Court reduced the Maratha reservation to 12-13%<\/strong> (Instead of 16%). This percent is also recommended by the State Backward Classes Commission. (Both are above 50 per cent)<\/li>\n
            • An appeal was filed in the Supreme Court<\/strong>. The Supreme Court during the case said that it will look into the capping of 50 per cent reservation in the Mandal case.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

              How does the Maratha reservation relate to the Indra Sawhney case?<\/strong><\/p>\n

              The Maratha reservation law is related to the Indra Sawhney case in Many ways such as,<\/p>\n

                \n
              1. The President power to notify<\/strong> backward classes<\/strong>–\n
                  \n
                • This power is provided by the 102nd<\/sup> Constitutional Amendment<\/strong> provided powers to the President to notify the backward classes. The Court has to find out whether States have powers to notify the backward classes or not.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
                • Validity of 103rd<\/sup> Amendment, 2019<\/strong>\n
                    \n
                  • This amendment provides for 10% reservation for the EWS in government jobs and educational institutions from the unreserved category.<\/li>\n
                  • Thus, the Marathas belong to EWS can attain benefits under the 103rd CAA. But the specific quotas to Marathas will turn into a bad example for communities asking for such reservations. For example, Patels in Gujarat, Jats in Haryana and Kapus in Andhra Pradesh.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
                  • The Breach of 50% ceiling set by Indra Sawhney Verdict<\/strong>\n
                      \n
                    • The Maharashtra law if enacted could make a reservation of up to 68%. Further, it can join states like Tamil Nadu, Haryana which already exceed the 50 per cent ceiling.<\/li>\n
                    • For Example<\/strong>– the Tamil Nadu government reserves 69% of the seats in colleges and jobs<\/strong> in the State government. Further, Tamil Nadu also placed its reservation law in Ninth Schedule<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                      What is Ninth Schedule<\/strong>–<\/h5>\n
                        \n
                      • It excludes the law from the jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 31 A of the Constitution.<\/li>\n
                      • Laws placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be challenged on the ground for violating any fundamental right.<\/li>\n
                      • However, in I R Coelho v\/s Tamil Nadu (2007)<\/strong> case the supreme court held that laws in the ninth schedule can be challenged on the ground of violation of the basic structure of the constitution.
                        \n
                        \n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                        Landmark verdict on Sexual harassment and its value for Women<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n