The Bihar government on Monday released the survey data of castes, revealing a general category population of 15.52%. Another discussion has commenced on the reservation for Indra Sawhney case ceiling.
Political debate has centered on the reservation problem, particularly in light of its infringement. Several laws were challenged by the judiciary in 2019 when the 10% EWS quota was contested in court. The Supreme Court’s bench of six judges ruled that up to 27% of seats might be reserved for members of the Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC). This decision justified 50% limitations by making reservations applicable to a particular population that was socially and educationally disadvantaged.
Brief of Indra Sawhney Case:
In the decision, the Supreme Court in 1992, in the case of ‘Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India’, set a 50% limit on reservations. The government must determine the necessity for “competency” in reservations. This decision was based on the reservation limit of 50% imposed in the same case of Indra Sawhney in 1992.
In 1994, Tamil Nadu challenged the reservation law, breaking the 50% limit. Tamil Nadu inserted the provision of the 1993 Tamil Nadu Act for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Most Backward Classes, and De-notified Communities (reservations in educational institutions or posts) into its legislation.
The challenge and the primary construction of the Act were referred to the pending Supreme Court’s judgment, before the 31st bench of the state religion in a later decade.
The 31A article of the second schedule in the same schedule of the state religion secures the legislation from judicial review and includes it under “protected boat shelter”. While the legislation placed under the second schedule is safe from judicial review, it can still be challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights when there are violations of the 50% reservation limit.
In May 2021, the Supreme Court upheld Maharashtra’s reservation for the Maratha community, establishing reservations for the community up to 68%. Similar issues persist in Gujarat with Patels, in Haryana with Jats, and in Andhra Pradesh with Kapus.
In November of the last decade, the Supreme Court allowed a 10% EWS quota, breaking the ceiling even further. In a 3:2 verdict, the majority opinion justified the ceiling by stating that the ceiling “never limits any time, regardless of whether it is violent or non-violent”.
This decision was challenged by two justices who cautioned, “permission to violate the 50% limit” can lead to more violations at a rapid pace, resulting in division. They emphasized “alert attention” to the majority’s view.
Timeline of Indra Sawhney Case
1992: Challenging the implementation of Mandal Commission recommendations, several petitioners, including Indra Sawhney, filed cases in the Supreme Court of India. The Mandal Commission had recommended 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government jobs.
1993: A bench of eleven judges of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, delivered its verdict on November 16, 1992. The court upheld the concept of reservations but limited the total reservations to 50%, preventing the exceeding of this limit in educational institutions and government jobs.
1995: The Supreme Court, in response to the Indra Sawhney case verdict, provided a clarification. It stated that extraordinary circumstances and compelling reasons could justify exceeding the 50% ceiling, but such situations must be based on valid grounds and supporting data.
2006: The Central Government implemented reservations for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in institutions like IITs (Indian Institutes of Technology) through the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006. Additionally, the Supreme Court set a 50% cap on reservations in admissions.
2019: The Indian Parliament approved the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, introducing reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) among the general category applicants in Article 15(6). This provision allows for reservations for economically disadvantaged sections without adversely affecting the existing reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs.