Adsterra

Decoding Landmark Judgments (Part - 3)

Lawkagyan November 25, 2024

 

Part - 3

Decoding Landmark Judgments That Shaped Indian Society: 

Series of 50 Cases 

India’s judiciary has consistently played a transformative role in shaping constitutional democracy and upholding social justice. Among the landmark cases that have left an indelible mark on India’s legal and political landscape, Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India (1992) and S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) stand out for their profound implications. These judgments refined principles of affirmative action and federalism, respectively, shaping India’s socio-political framework. They also featured insightful judicial opinions that became guiding principles for future cases.

Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India (1992)

Also known as the Mandal Commission Case, this landmark judgment is a cornerstone of India’s affirmative action policies, focusing on caste-based reservations.




Key Background

The case arose out of a political and social maelstrom following the implementation of recommendations made by the Mandal Commission (1979). The Commission, led by B.P. Mandal, was constituted to identify socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) and suggest measures for their upliftment.




Among its key recommendations was a 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government jobs and educational institutions, in addition to the existing 22.5% for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).

In 1990, Prime Minister V.P. Singh announced the implementation of the recommendations, triggering widespread protests, including self-immolation by students, and sparking heated debates about caste, meritocracy, and equality. The matter reached the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of caste-based reservations.

Questions Addressed by the Court

The nine-judge Constitution Bench examined critical issues:

  1. Is caste a valid criterion for identifying backward classes under Article 16(4)?
  2. What should be the extent and scope of reservations in public employment?
  3. Is economic backwardness sufficient to determine eligibility for affirmative action?
  4. Should the creamy layer within backward classes be excluded?



Judges’ Opinions and Key Takeaways

The judgment was delivered with a 6:3 majority. The opinions of the judges highlighted both the complexity of the issue and their reasoning behind the principles they established.

  1. Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy (Majority Opinion):
    Justice Jeevan Reddy wrote the majority judgment, which upheld caste as a valid criterion for identifying backward classes but imposed significant restrictions to ensure fairness:

    • Caste as a Proxy for Backwardness: Justice Reddy argued that caste, in the Indian context, remains a critical marker of historical disadvantage and cannot be ignored in policies of affirmative action.
    • Creamy Layer Concept: He emphasized the exclusion of the creamy layer to prevent misuse of reservation benefits, stating, “The benefits of reservation must reach the truly backward, and it is the state’s duty to identify such groups.”
    • 50% Cap on Reservations: Justice Reddy strongly advocated for the ceiling, asserting that excessive reservations would distort the principle of equality and merit under Article 14.


  1. Justice Kuldip Singh (Dissenting Opinion):
    Justice Kuldip Singh dissented, expressing concern that extensive caste-based reservations could perpetuate divisions in society. He argued that affirmative action should focus on economic criteria rather than caste, emphasizing the need for policies that transcend divisive identities.

  2. Justice R.M. Sahai (Concurring Opinion with Reservations):
    Justice Sahai expressed partial agreement with the majority, emphasizing the need for a dynamic and flexible approach to reservations. He noted that policies should evolve to address emerging inequalities.




Judgment Highlights

Delivered on November 16, 1992, the court’s ruling upheld the constitutional validity of caste as a criterion for identifying backward classes under Article 16(4). However, it introduced several important principles and limitations to ensure fairness and equity.

  1. Caste as a Criterion:

    • The court recognized caste as a significant indicator of social and educational backwardness in India.
    • It rejected the argument that economic criteria alone should determine backwardness, emphasizing the historical and structural disadvantages faced by certain castes.

  2. 50% Cap on Reservations:

    • The court introduced a ceiling of 50% on reservations in public employment to prevent excessive discrimination against the general category.
    • Exceptions were allowed only in extraordinary circumstances, to be justified with substantial evidence.

  3. Exclusion of the Creamy Layer:

    • To ensure that benefits reached the genuinely disadvantaged, the court mandated the exclusion of the “creamy layer” (economically advanced individuals) within OBCs.
    • This principle sought to prevent wealthier or more privileged members of backward classes from monopolizing the benefits of affirmative action.

  4. No Reservations in Promotions:

    • The judgment barred reservations in promotions, stating that affirmative action should focus on initial recruitment.
    • This principle was later revisited and modified in subsequent cases.

  5. Periodic Review:

    • The court emphasized the need for periodic review of reservation policies to ensure they addressed current realities and did not perpetuate inequities.



Impact and Significance

The Indra Sawhney judgment reshaped the framework of affirmative action in India, striking a delicate balance between social justice and meritocracy. Key outcomes include:

  • Codification of Creamy Layer Principle: This concept became central to determining eligibility for reservations among OBCs.
  • Influence on Future Legislation: The judgment influenced subsequent laws and policies, including the extension of reservations to educational institutions through the 93rd Constitutional Amendment (2005).
  • Debate on Reservation Limits: The 50% cap remains a contentious issue, with some states seeking to exceed it (e.g., Tamil Nadu with 69% reservations).



This case remains a touchstone for debates on caste, equality, and affirmative action in India’s evolving social landscape.

 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

This landmark judgment redefined the relationship between the Union and state governments, emphasizing federalism and limiting the arbitrary use of Article 356 (President’s Rule).

Judges’ Opinions and Analysis

The judgment was delivered unanimously by a nine-judge bench, with individual opinions contributing to a nuanced understanding of Article 356.

  1. Justice P.B. Sawant:
    Justice Sawant emphasized that Article 356 should be invoked only in cases of genuine breakdown of constitutional machinery, not for political reasons. He stated, “Federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution, and arbitrary dismissal of state governments violates this principle.”

  2. Justice K. Ramaswamy:
    Justice Ramaswamy underscored that secularism is a core feature of the Constitution, and any violation of secular principles by a state government could justify invoking Article 356.

  3. Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy (Unanimous Judgment):
    Justice Reddy highlighted that the majority in a legislative assembly must be tested on the floor of the House, not through external assessments. He added that dismissal of governments must be based on clear evidence, not mere allegations.

  4. Justice S.C. Agrawal:
    Justice Agrawal supported the principle of judicial review, ensuring that courts could intervene if Article 356 was misused for political gain.




Judgment Highlights

Delivered in March 1994, the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision became a watershed moment for federalism in India. Key principles included:

  1. Judicial Review of Article 356:

    • The court ruled that imposition of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review, making it justiciable.
    • The central government must demonstrate valid reasons for invoking Article 356, supported by objective material.

  2. Floor Test as the Ultimate Indicator:

    • The judgment emphasized that majority support must be tested on the floor of the legislature. A government cannot be dismissed merely on the perception of losing majority support.

  3. Secularism as a Guiding Principle:

    • The court underscored that non-compliance with the principle of secularism could constitute a breakdown of constitutional machinery.

  4. Recommendations to Prevent Misuse:

    • The court set guidelines to prevent arbitrary use of Article 356, requiring the President to consider all available options before dismissing a state government.

  5. Reinstatement of Wrongfully Dismissed Governments:

    • The court ordered reinstatement of state governments dismissed without valid grounds, setting a strong precedent against misuse.



Impact and Significance

The S.R. Bommai judgment strengthened India’s federal structure by curbing the central government’s arbitrary powers. Its long-term implications include:

  • Federalism Redefined: The judgment affirmed India’s quasi-federal character, ensuring that states retained significant autonomy.
  • Reduced Misuse of Article 356: Post-1994, the frequency of President’s Rule impositions declined significantly.
  • Judicial Oversight: Courts now act as a safeguard against politically motivated dismissals of state governments.



This judgment remains a beacon for protecting federal principles and ensuring checks on executive overreach.

Conclusion

The Indra Sawhney and S.R. Bommai cases exemplify the judiciary’s pivotal role in addressing complex constitutional questions and safeguarding democratic principles. While Indra Sawhney

redefined affirmative action policies, balancing caste-based reservations with equality, S.R. Bommai upheld the sanctity of federalism by limiting arbitrary central interventions.

These judgments continue to influence debates on social justice, governance, and federalism, underscoring the judiciary’s enduring commitment to a more equitable and democratic India.


FAQs

1. What is the creamy layer principle introduced in Indra Sawhney’s case?
The creamy layer principle excludes economically advanced individuals within OBCs from availing reservation benefits, ensuring affirmative action reaches the truly disadvantaged.

2. Why is the S.R. Bommai case significant for federalism?
The case curbed the misuse of Article 356, reinforcing state autonomy and promoting cooperative federalism.

3. How did Indra Sawhney’s judgment impact reservation policies?
It introduced the 50% cap on reservations, the creamy layer concept, and barred reservations in promotions, ensuring a balance between social justice and meritocracy.

4. What is the role of judicial review in S.R. Bommai’s case?
Judicial review ensures that the imposition of President’s Rule is based on valid and objective reasons, preventing political misuse.

5. How do these judgments shape contemporary India?
Both judgments serve as guiding principles for implementing affirmative action policies and maintaining federal integrity, ensuring a balance between social justice and democratic governance.





Post a Comment

0 Comments