The Mandal Commission Case

A nine- Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has laid down in Indra Sawhney’s case (popularly known as the Mandal Commission Case) regarding reservation in Government employment , that;

Under Article 16(4) provisions can be made in favour of the backward classes in the matter of employments by Executive orders also. Backward class of citizens is not defined in the Constitution. A caste may also constitute a class. The backwardness contemplated by Art. 16(4) are mainly social. It need not be both social and educational. Income or the extant of property can be taken as a measure of social advancement and on that basis the ‘Creamy layer’ of a given caste can be excluded. The reservations contemplated in Art. 16(4) should not exceed 50%. Reservation of posts under Art. 16(4) are confined to initial appointment only and cannot extend to providing reservation in promotion.

Note: Mandal Commission was set up in 1979 under the Chairmanship of B.N. Madal, M.P. (Former Chief Minister of Bihar).

·         The 77 the Amendment has provided to continue reservation in promotion for the S.C and S.T.

·          Identification of backward classes is subject to judicial review.

·         Article 17 ensures Abolition of Untouchability. The word’ untouchaility ‘has not been defined either in the Constitution or in the relevant Act of Parliament. It has been assumed that the word has a well known connotation.

·         Article 18 ensures Abolition of titles. It prevents the State from conferring any title.

·         This ban is only against the State and not against other public institutions, such as Universities.

·         The State is not debarred from awarding military or academic distinctions, even though they may be used as titles.

·         The State is not prevented from conferring any distinction or award which cannot be used as a title. Bharat Ratna or Padma Vibhusha cannot be used by the recipient as a title and therefore does not come within the Constitutional prohibition.