Why in News
The legitimacy of any demand for a change in public policy lies in the rationale behind it and not in the strength in support for it.
There is a reason why even after States have bowed down to popular demands for reservation to social groups which were not considered backward earlier, their actions have been reversed or nullified by the higher judiciary.
This has been true of previous pieces of legislation passed by the Maharashtra government to grant reservation to the Maratha community.
The Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) judgment, also known as the Mandal Commission case, is a landmark case in Indian legal history concerning affirmative action policies, known in India as reservations.
The case arose from a challenge to the government's implementation of the Mandal Commission report,
Commission recommended a 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes in central government jobs.
The Supreme Court upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs, but introduced several significant limitations:
Caste as a basis: The court accepted caste as an acceptable indicator of backwardness, validating the use of caste in reservation policies.
Creamy layer exclusion: The concept of the creamy layer was introduced, excluding the more privileged sections within OBCs from reservation benefits.
Reservation cap: A 50% ceiling was imposed on the total reservation for all categories, including Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and OBCs.
Reservations for promotions: Reservations were restricted to initial appointments and not extended to promotions.
The Indra Sawhney judgment remains a highly debated topic in India, with arguments for and against its impact on achieving social and educational equality.
It continues to influence discussions and policies related to affirmative action in the country.
COMMENTS