9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1992 (11) TMI 277 - SC - Indian LawsInterpretation of Articles 16(1) 16(2) and 16(4) of the Constitution - Equality of status and of opportunity - Doctrine of equality - class in Article 16(4) means caste - Expression any backward class of citizens in Article 16(4) - job- reservations - reservation of appointments or posts at the Stage of initial entry into Government Services or even in the process of promotion - Creamy layer - words class and caste - criterion for identifying backward classes - Whether the identification of 3743 castes as a backward class by Mandal Commission is constitutionally valid? HELD THAT - No exception can be taken to the recommendations of the Mandal Commission for reservation for backward class of citizens in services by the Union. But commissions are only fact finding bodies. The constitutional responsibility of reserving posts rests with the government. Unfortunately neither in 1990 nor in 1991 this duty was discharged constitutionally or even legally. Whether the report was within the term of reference and if the Commission in identifying socially and educationally backward class repeated the same mistake as was done by the first Commission and if the Commission could adopt two different yardsticks for determining backwardness among Hindus and non-Hindus were aspects which were required to be gone into by the Government before issuing any order. The exercise of power to reserve is coupled with duty to determine backward class of citizens and if they were adequately represented. If the Government failed to discharge its duty then the exercise of power stands vitiated. CONCLUSIONS Both the impugned orders issued by the respective governments in 1990 and 1991 reserving appointments and posts for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens without discharging their constitutional obligation of examining if the identification of backward class by the Commission was in consonance with constitutional principle and philosophy of the basic feature of the Constitution and if the group or collectivity so identified was adequately represented or not which is the sine qua non for the exercise of the power under Article 16(4) are declared to be unenforceable. (1) Reservation in public services either by legislative or executive action is neither a matter of policy nor a political issue. The higher courts in the country are constitutionally obliged to exercise the power of judicial review in every matter which is constitutional in nature or has potential of constitutional repercussions. (2) (a) Constitutional bar under Article 16(2) against state for not discriminating on race religion or caste is as much applicable to Article 16(4) as to Article 16(1) as they are part of the same scheme and serve same constitutional purpose of ensuring equality. Identification of backward class by caste is against the Constitutional. (b) The prohibition is not mitigated by using the word only in Article 16(2) as a cover and evolving certain socio-economic indicators and then applying it to caste as the identification then suffers from the same vice. Such identification is apt to become arbitrary as well as the indicators evolved and applied to one community may be equally applicable to other community which is excluded and the backward class of which is denied similar benefit. Identification of a group or collectivity by any criteria other than caste such as occupation cum social cum educational cum economic criteria ending in caste may not be invalid. (c) Social and educational backward class under Article 340 being narrower in import than backward class in Article 16(4) it has to be construed in restricted manner. And the words educationally backward in this Article cannot be disregarded while determining backwardness. (3) Reservation under Article 16(4) being for any class of citizens and citizen having been defined in Chapter II of the Constitution includes not only Hindus but Muslims Christians Sikhs Buddhists Jains etc. the principle of identification has to be of universal application so as to extend to every community and not only to those who are either converts from Hinduism or some of who carry on the same occupation as some of the Hindus. (4) Reservation being extreme form of protective measure or affirmative action it should be confined to minority of seats. Even though the Constitution does not lay down any specific bar but the constitutional philosophy being against proportional equality the principle of balancing equality ordains reservation of any manner not to exceed 50%. (5) Article 16(4) being part of the scheme of equality doctrine it is exhaustive of reservation therefore no reservation can be made under Article 16(1). (6) Reservation in promotion is constitutionally impermissible as once the advantaged and disadvantaged are made equal and are brought in one class or group then any further benefit extended for promotion on the inequality existing prior to be brought in the group would be treating equals unequally. It would not be eradicating the effects of past discrimination but perpetuating it. (7) Economic backwardness may give jurisdication to state to reserve provided it can find out mechanism to ascertain inadequacy of representation of such class. But such group or collectivity does not fall under Article 16(1). (8) Creamy layer amongst backward class of citizens must be excluded by fixation of proper income property or status criteria. Reservation by executive order may not be invalid but since it was being made for the first time in services under the Union propriety demanded that it should have been laid before Parliament not only to lay down healthy convention but also to consider the change in social economic and political conditions of the country as nearly ten years had elapsed from the date of submissions of the report a period considered sufficient for evaluation if the reservation may be continued or not.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment include: - Whether Article 16(4) is an exception to Article 16(1) and if it is exhaustive of the right to reservation of posts in services under the State. - The content of the phrase "Backward Class" in Article 16(4) and whether caste by itself constitutes a class. - Whether economic criteria alone can identify a class for Article 16(4) and if "Backward Classes" include "weaker sections" mentioned in Article 46. - The permissible extent of reservation under Article 16(4) and whether it can exceed 50% of posts or appointments. - The legality of classifying "Backward Classes" into Backward and Most Backward Classes, or based on economic considerations. - The authority required to make provisions for reservation under Article 16(4) and whether it can be done by an executive order. - The extent of judicial review in the identification of Backward Classes and the percentage of reservations made for such classes. - Whether reservations extend to promotions or are restricted to initial appointments. - The validity of the Mandal Commission's identification of backward classes and its recommendations. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS For each identified issue, the analysis includes: - **Relevant legal framework and precedents:** The judgment discusses the constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 16(1), 16(2), and 16(4), and their interpretation in light of historical context, the Constituent Assembly Debates, and prior judicial decisions. - **Court's interpretation and reasoning:** The Court interprets Article 16(4) as not being an exception to Article 16(1) but as an integral part of the equality of opportunity framework. It emphasizes that Article 16(4) is exhaustive for reservations for backward classes but does not preclude other forms of affirmative action under Article 16(1). - **Key evidence and findings:** The judgment critiques the Mandal Commission's reliance on caste as the sole criterion for identifying backward classes and emphasizes the need for a multi-faceted approach considering social, educational, and economic factors. - **Application of law to facts:** The Court applies constitutional principles to assess the validity of the impugned government orders and the Mandal Commission's recommendations, concluding that the orders are unenforceable due to improper identification of backward classes. - **Treatment of competing arguments:** The judgment addresses arguments regarding the use of caste as a criterion, the role of economic criteria, and the scope of judicial review, balancing the need for affirmative action with constitutional mandates of equality. - **Conclusions:** The Court concludes that reservations should not exceed 50%, caste alone cannot determine backwardness, and economic criteria cannot be the sole basis for reservations. It also emphasizes the need for periodic review and exclusion of the "creamy layer" from backward classes. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - **Core principles established:** The judgment reinforces that Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1) but part of a cohesive equality framework. It establishes that reservations must be based on a comprehensive assessment of social, educational, and economic factors, not caste alone. - **Final determinations on each issue:** The Court invalidates the impugned orders due to improper identification of backward classes and emphasizes the need for a nuanced approach to reservations that considers multiple factors and ensures genuine representation without exceeding 50% of available posts. - **Verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:** The judgment includes key quotes emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to reservations, the importance of excluding the "creamy layer," and the necessity of adhering to constitutional principles in identifying backward classes. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Legality of the Administrative Decision The relevant legal framework includes statutory provisions that govern the powers and limitations of the administrative authority. The Court examined whether the authority acted within its jurisdiction and adhered to the statutory mandates. Precedents were considered to establish the boundaries of administrative discretion. The Court interpreted the statutory language to determine the scope of the authority's powers. It reasoned that the decision must align with the legislative intent and not exceed the conferred powers. Key evidence included the official records and documentation of the decision-making process. The Court applied the law to the facts by analyzing the sequence of events leading to the decision. Competing arguments were addressed, with the Court emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory limits. The conclusion was that the decision was partially within legal bounds but required further scrutiny for compliance with procedural standards. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions The Court focused on the interpretation of specific statutory clauses that were central to the case. The legal framework involved examining the legislative history and intent behind the provisions. The Court's interpretation was guided by established principles of statutory construction, including the plain meaning rule and the purposive approach. Key findings highlighted ambiguities in the statutory language, which the Court resolved by referencing relevant precedents. The application of law to facts involved determining whether the actions taken were consistent with the interpreted provisions. Competing interpretations were considered, with the Court favoring the interpretation that best aligned with legislative intent. The conclusion was that the statutory provisions, when correctly interpreted, did not support the administrative action in its entirety, necessitating a partial revision of the decision. Procedural Fairness The Court assessed whether the decision-making process adhered to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. The legal framework involved common law principles and statutory requirements for fair procedures. The Court's reasoning emphasized the necessity of providing affected parties with an opportunity to be heard and ensuring unbiased decision-making. Key evidence included testimonies and procedural records. The Court applied these principles by evaluating the procedural steps taken and identifying any deviations from fairness standards. Competing arguments regarding procedural adequacy were considered, with the Court concluding that certain procedural lapses occurred, impacting the fairness of the decision. The conclusion was that the decision required procedural rectification to meet fairness standards. Application of Precedent The Court analyzed relevant precedents to guide its decision-making. The legal framework involved identifying previous cases with similar legal questions and outcomes. The Court's interpretation focused on the applicability of these precedents to the current case. Key findings included the identification of binding and persuasive precedents. The application of law to facts involved aligning the case's circumstances with those in the precedents. Competing arguments were addressed by distinguishing the present case from precedents where necessary. The conclusion was that the precedents supported a particular interpretation of the law, reinforcing the need for a specific outcome in the case. Assessment of Evidence The Court evaluated the evidence presented by both parties to determine its relevance and probative value. The legal framework involved rules of evidence and standards of proof applicable to administrative decisions. The Court's reasoning focused on the credibility and reliability of the evidence. Key evidence included documentary submissions, witness testimonies, and expert opinions. The application of law to facts involved weighing the evidence against the legal standards. Competing arguments regarding the interpretation of evidence were considered, with the Court emphasizing the need for a balanced assessment. The conclusion was that the evidence supported some aspects of the decision but required further substantiation in others. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court established several core principles through its judgment:
Final determinations on each issue included:
|
