SEMINAR PAPER II

ASSIGNMENT NO. 2

THE MANDAL COMMISSION CASE AND AFTER EFFECTS IN INDIA

Submitted by

MD NAWAZISH KHAN

Roll no. 57

B.A.LL.B., II Semester.

Assignment Submitted to

Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University’s Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar

College of Law, Nagpur.

2022-2023
 INDEX

Particulars Page no.

A. LIST OF STATUES 2

B. LIST OF CASES 3

C. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 4

D. ABSTRACT 5

1. INTRODUCTION 5

2. Historical Background 6

3. An Overview of Mandal Commission Report 7

4. Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India 8

4.1. Judgement of the case

9
5. Reservation under the Indian Constitution

6. Effects of Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India Case 11

7. Conclusion 12

8. Suggestions 12

E. BIBLIOGRAPHY 14

1
A. List of statues.
1. Constitution of India.
2. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989.
3. The 77th Amendment Act,1995.
4. The 81st Amendment Act,2000.
5. The 85th Amendment Act,2005.

2
B. List of Cases

1. Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477, 1992 Supp 2 SCR 454.

2. Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan 1995 AIR 448, 1995 SCC (6) 684.

3. Arijit Singh v. State of Punjab1996 (2) SCC 215. 3792-94.

3
C. List of Abbreviations

1. ART Article
2. SCC Supreme Court Case
3. AIR All India Reporter
4. NCBC National Commission for
Backward Classes
5. OBC Other Backward Class
5. SC Scheduled Cast

6. ST Scheduled Tribe

7. SEBCs Socially & Educationally

Backward Classes

4
 THE MANDAL COMMISSION CASE AND AFTER EFFECTS IN INDIA

D. ABSTRACT
The Mandal Commission Case and what followed in India have had a profound impact on
the nation's social and political history. This research paper focuses on understanding the
consequences of the Mandal Commission's suggestions and the subsequent introduction of
reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in India. The commission, also known as
the Second Backward Classes Commission, was set up in 1979 with the aim of identifying
communities that were socially and educationally disadvantaged and proposing ways to
uplift them. he paper begins by providing a comprehensive overview of the Mandal
Commission's formation, its mandate, and the socio-political circumstances leading to its
establishment. It delves into the Commission's findings, which identified a substantial
population of OBCs facing social and economic disadvantages. The recommendations made
by the Commission, particularly the proposal to introduce reservations for OBCs in
government jobs and educational institutions, sparked intense debates and controversy
across the nation. This research paper thoroughly examines the Mandal Commission Case
and its significant impact on Indian society. By studying the historical background,
difficulties in implementing the recommendations, and the resulting outcomes, this study
provides a detailed understanding of the complex issues related to affirmative action policies
in India. It sheds light on the ongoing discussions and concerns regarding social justice,
equality, and inclusivity in the Indian context. The paper emphasizes the importance of
creating a fair and inclusive society for sustainable development.

Keywords: Scheduled Tribe, constitution of India, Scheduled Caste, National Commission

for Backward Classes, Other Backward Class, Socially and Educationally Backward Classes.
1. Introduction

Thirty years ago, on August 7, 1990, the then prime minister V.P. Singh made a historic
decision that changed Indian politics and way of ensuring social justice. The then government
decided to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission, and open up
reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government jobs. He announced that
OBCS would get 27% reservation in jobs in central government services and public sector
units. This was perhaps the world largest affirmative action programme. The decision
changed the narrative of Caste that had been the basis of unbridled torture and ostracisation

5
into the instrument of social justice. However, it also opened up a Pandora's Box1, leading to
widespread opposition and vote bank politics.The Mandal Commission case was an important
legal case in India that had a big impact on society and politics. It came about because people
from lower castes and tribes were demanding equal opportunities and social justice. So, the
government set up the Mandal Commission in 1979, led by B.P. Mandal, to investigate the
conditions of socially and educationally backward classes.The commission studied the social
and economic situations of these communities and made recommendations to improve their
lives. One of the main recommendations was to reserve 27% of government jobs and seats in
educational institutions for these socially and educationally backward classes, also called
Other Backward Classes (OBCs).2

Implementing these recommendations sparked a lot of debate and controversy in Indian

society. Some people believed it was important to address historical injustices and provide
opportunities for the disadvantaged, while others opposed it, arguing for a merit-based
system and equal opportunities for everyone. The case eventually reached the Supreme
Court, which gave its verdict in 1992. The court upheld the idea of reservation but limited it
to 50% and introduced the concept of the creamy layer exclusion. This meant that the most
well off individuals within the backward classes would not be eligible for reservation
benefits.
The Mandal Commission case3 had a profound impact on Indian society and politics. It led to
the expansion of reservation policies for OBCs in various areas and caused shifts in political
alignments. It also sparked discussions about the effectiveness of reservations, merit-based
selection, and the balance between affirmative action and equal opportunities.
Overall, the Mandal Commission case was a significant milestone in India's ongoing journey
towards inclusivity and social equality. It continues to shape policies and discussions related
to affirmative action and reservation in the country4.
2. Historical background

In 1953, the Kaka Kalelkar Commission, also known as the First Backwards Class
Commission, was established under Article 340 of the Indian Constitution to investigate the
situation of backward classes. However, its report, released in 1955, was rejected in 1961. In

1
a process that once begun generates many complicated problems.
2
National Commission for Backward Classes,available at http://www.ncbc.nic.in(last visited on June 9, 2023).
3
Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477, 1992 Supp 2 SCR 454.
4
Theprint2023pp1-3,available at https://theprint.in/yourturn/subscriberwrites-reservation-policy-in-india-needs-
be-more-inclusive-and-aim-for-greater-diversity/672496-p11(last visited on June 10, 2023).

6
1979, the Second Backwards Class Commission, known as the Mandal Commission, was
formed by the Janata Dal government led by Prime Minister Moraji Desai. The Mandal
Commission submitted its report in December 1980, recommending measures for the
development of the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs). The report
proposed a 27% government reservation for SEBCs in addition to the existing 22.5%
reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). Despite the Mandal
Commission's suggestions, the Congress government, which came to power after the fall of
the Janata Dal government, did not implement the report for a long time. It was only when
the Janata Dal regained power in 1989 that they issued an Office Memorandum (OM) to
implement the Mandal Commission Report. However, this decision led to violent anti-
reservation protests, including self-immolation by protesting students. Following the fall of
the Janata Dal government, the Congress government led by P.V. Narasimha Rao came to
power in 1991 and issued another OM to implement the Mandal Commission Report with
modifications. These modifications included introducing an economic criterion to prioritize
the poorest sections within the proposed 27% quota for SEBCs and an additional 10%
reservation for economically disadvantaged sections not covered by any existing reservation
schemes. Despite these changes, widespread violence persisted, resulting in significant loss of
life and property. On September 11, 1990, the Supreme Court took over all writ petitions
challenging the implementation of the Mandal Commission Report, initiating a two-year-long
struggle to balance judicial pragmatism with political opportunism. During this time, the
introduction of the Liberalisation, Privatisation, and Globalisation (LPG) policy in 1991
opened doors for international private players, raising concerns about how effectively
reservation could uplift the SEBCs. The Mandal Commission case had significant
consequences in India. It resulted in a reconfiguration of political forces and the rise of caste-
based politics as a dominant factor in Indian elections. The implementation of reservation
policies for OBCs in educational institutions and public sector employment had a profound
impact on access to opportunities for various communities. While it provided greater
representation for marginalized sections, it also brought to light issues of fairness and equal
opportunities.

Over the years, the debate on reservation and its effectiveness has continued in Indian
society. Efforts have been made to extend reservation benefits to other marginalized
communities, such as economically weaker sections. The Mandal Commission case remains

7
an important milestone in the ongoing struggle for social justice and equality in India,
highlighting the intricate interplay between caste, politics, and affirmative action.

3. An Overview of Mandal Commission Report

After comprehending the chronology, we may determine the foundation for the Mandal
commission’s findings. Classes were graded on a scale of 0 to 22 by the Mandal
Commission. Eleven factors were applied to all castes in a given state that were surveyed. As
a consequence of this application, all castes with a score of 50% (11 points) or less were
classified as socially and educationally backward, while the remaining casts were classified
as ‘advanced.’ Each group’s indications was assigned a different weight. Three points for
social indicators, two for educational indicators, and one for economic indicators. They were
weighted according to their significance and the country’s need for a reservation for them.
Thus, having determined that 52% of the country’s population was made up of OBCs, the
Commission originally contended that the proportion of reservations for backward classes in
public services should likewise be 52%. However, since this would have violated a previous
Supreme Court judgment requiring that reservation of posts be less than 50%, the proposed
reservation for OBCs had to be set at a level that, when combined with the 22.5 percent
reserved for SCs and STs, stays below the 50% limit. 5 In light of this legal requirement, the
Commission was compelled to propose a 27% reservation for backward castes alone. Due to
the inclusion of the OBC, the link between caste and economic backwardness became even
weaker.

Further, according to the commission, reservations in government employment and

educational institutions, as well as any financial support, would remain a temporary measure
until the underlying causes of backwardness were addressed. The most critical single step
toward the wellbeing and elevation of all backward classes is a fundamental change of
current production relations. As a result, we have established how and why the reservation
policy was implemented. As previously stated, many recommendations were not
implemented, and those that were implemented contained inconsistencies that were resolved
by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case 6 (also known as the Mandal case).

5
Class, N. C. (1989). Mandal Commission report. New delhi: government of india.
6
Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477, 1992 Supp 2 SCR 454.

8
4. Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India7

The case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) is a significant legal milestone that has
become deeply ingrained in the Indian judiciary. It stands as a witness to the ongoing power
struggle, conflicts of interest, and the varying opinions surrounding reservation policies in
India. This landmark case emerged amidst widespread unrest and violent protests across the
country, triggered by the introduction of the Mandal Commission Report's controversial
recommendation of a 27 percent quota for socially and educationally backward classes
(SEBCs) in central government jobs and public institutions.

The Indra Sawhney case8 dealt with the implementation of reservation recommendations for
socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) in government jobs and education. The
Mandal Commission had suggested a 27 percent reservation for SEBCs, along with existing
reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). A nine-judge bench
heard the case, which was one of the biggest benches ever formed for a single case in India.
The main question was whether the 27 percent reservation for SEBCs violated the equality
principle in the Constitution. 9

4.1. Judgement of the Case

The important Indra Sawhney judgement is a long and detailed verdict, the crucks of the
judgement is under Article 16(4), backward classes of citizens can be identified on the basis
of caste and not just on an economic basis. Economic criteria cannot be the sole identifying
factor for backwardness under article 16(4). Also, in order to prevent the abuse of power, the
identifying examination to determine backwardness should be an objective one and not a
subjective one. Article 16(4) is an independent clause and not an exception to Article 16(1).
Article 16(4) is exhaustive in nature regarding reservations for backward classes only. Article
16(1) permits reasonable classification and reservation for other classes. The socially and
educationally backward classes under Article 15(4) are different from the backward classes
under Article 16(4). Article 16(4) permits the sub-classification of backward classes into
backward and more backward classes. Creamy layers (socially advanced people) can be and
must be excluded from backward classes for the purposes of reservation under Article 16(4).

7
Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477, 1992 Supp 2 SCR 454.
8
Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477, 1992 Supp 2 SCR 454.
9
Parthasarathy, M. (2022). Supreme Court Observer. Creamy Layer: Court in Review
https://www.scobserver.in/journal/creamy-layer-court-in-review.

9
Reservations shall not exceed 50 percent and even for the purpose of application of the carry
forward rule (by which unfulfilled vacancies are filled in the upcoming year), the 50 percent
ceiling should not be breached. There shall be no reservation in promotions.

5. Reservation under the Indian Constitution

Having comprehended the reservation policy and its necessity, we will now examine the
constitutional provisions in place to protect against such unfair practices.

5.1.Part XVI- concerned with the reservation of seats in the Central and State legislatures for
SC and ST.10

5.2. Articles 15(4) -This article do not stop the government from creating specific rules to
help socially and educationally disadvantaged groups of people, as well as the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 11

5.3. Article 16(4) – This article does not restrict the government from implementing
reservations for job positions or appointments in favor of any socially disadvantaged group
that the State believes is not adequately represented in government services.12

5.4. Article 16(4A)- Allows the government to offer reservation in promotion and further
consequential seniority to SC and ST candidates elevated via reservation.13 [Inserted by the
Constitution (77th Amendment) Act, 1995 and modified via Constitution (85th Amendment)
Act, 2005].

5.5. Article 16 (4 B)- Allowing the state to replace empty positions reserved for SCs/STs in
the following year, thus nullifying the fifty percent reservation cap on total vacancies for that
year.[ ART 16(4B) of the Constitution of India (1950).] [introduced via the 81st Amendment
Act of 2000].14

5.6. Article 17 - Abolition of untouchability and declares its practice in any form to be an
offense punishable under law. 15

10
Part XVI of the Constitution of India (1950).
11
ART 15(4) of the Constitution of India (1950).
12
ART 16(4) of the Constitution of India (1950).
13
ART 16(4A) of the Constitution of India (1950).
14
Ins. by the Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000, s. 2 (w.e.f. 9-6-2000).
15
ART 17 of the Constitution of India (1950).

10
5.7. Article 39-A – Implementation of equal justice and free legal aid to Economically
Backward Classes.16

5.8. Articles 33017 and 33218- Provide special representation for SCs and STs in Parliament
and State Legislative Assemblies, respectively.

5.9. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: This
law is designed to prevent acts of violence and mistreatment against individuals belonging to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It also includes measures to provide protection and
support for their well-being. 19

6. Effects of Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India Case

So, the Supreme Court decided to remove the excessive policies and establish a more
effective policy based on the Mandal Commission Report. The case led to certain
amendments like:

77th Amendment (1995):- This Amendment was made to overturn the reservation ban
mentioned in the Indra Sawhney judgement regarding promotions for people belonging to
reserved categories. The Amendment added Article 16(4A) to the constitution, which allowed
the government to provide reservation in promotions to SCs/STs as long as the state believes
that these groups are not adequately represented in the state services. 20

81st Amendment Act (2000):- This constitutional amendment was introduced to enable
reservations in promotions. It included Article 16(4B), which introduced the "carry-forward
rule." This rule allowed unfilled vacancies to be carried over to subsequent years and treated
as a separate category, which allowed for exceeding the 50% reservation limit set by the
Indra Sawhney judgement. Interestingly, while the carry-forward rule created a separate
category to surpass the 50% limit, it also gave constitutional recognition to the 50% ceiling
limit stated in the Indra Sawhney judgement.21

16
ART 39(A) of the Constitution of India (1950).
17
ART 330 of the Constitution of India (1950).
18
ART 332 of the Constitution of India (1950).
19
Ministry of Tribal Affairs https://tribal.nic.in/actRules/preventionofAtricities.
20
77th Amendment Act(1995) of the Constitution of India (1950).
21
81st Amendment Act(2000) of the Constitution of India (1950).

11
85th Amendment Act (2005):- Through this constitutional amendment, Article 16(4A) was
changed by adding the term "consequential seniority" to it. As a result, reserved candidates
who have received promotions through reservation policies maintain their seniority over
general category candidates in future promotions. This amendment overturned the catch-up
rule established in the cases of Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan (1995)22 and Arijit
Singh v. State of Punjab (1996)23.24

These 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Constitutional Amendments were upheld in case of
M.Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006).25 The M.Nagaraj case26, decided by a five-judge Bench,
identified three important factors to prevent excessive reservation. Firstly, the reservation
should not exceed the 50% limit (quantitative factor). Secondly, a creamy layer exclusion
should be applied to reservations in promotions (qualitative factor). Lastly, the state needs to
provide evidence through proper data collection that there is genuine backwardness and
inadequate representation.
6. Conclusion

In conclusion, the Mandal Commission Case and its aftermath in India have left a lasting
impact on the country's social and political landscape. This research paper has delved into the
historical context, implementation challenges, and subsequent outcomes of the Mandal
Commission's recommendations regarding reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
By looking at these factors, this research helps us better understand the complicated issues
surrounding affirmative action policies in India. It brings attention to the ongoing discussions
and thoughts about social justice, equality, and inclusivity in the Indian context. The effects
of the Mandal Commission's suggestions and the introduction of reservations for OBCs have
changed the balance of power, led to increased political involvement, and influenced politics
based on identity in India. These policies have had both positive and negative outcomes, such
as more OBC representation in government and better educational opportunities for
marginalized communities. However, there are still challenges that need to be addressed,
including regularly assessing and improving these policies to ensure fairness and inclusivity.

22
Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan 1995 AIR 448, 1995 SCC (6) 684.
23
Arijit Singh v. State of Punjab1996 (2) SCC 215. 3792-94.
24
85th Amendment Act(2005) of the Constitution of India (1950).
25
M. Nagaraj & Others vs Union of India & Others (2006) 8 SCC 212.
26
M. Nagaraj & Others vs Union of India & Others (2006) 8 SCC 212.

12
7. Suggestions

Impact on Education: Investigate how the recommendations of the Mandal Commission

affected education in India. Examine how reservations for OBCs influenced their access to
higher education, enrollment rates, and educational outcomes. Analyze the challenges and
advantages of implementing reservation policies in educational institutions.

Political Shifts: Explore the political consequences of the Mandal Commission case.
Investigate how the case influenced the emergence of regional political parties and alliances,
particularly those representing the interests of OBCs. Analyze the changes in power
dynamics and electoral strategies resulting from increased OBC political mobilization.

Socioeconomic Changes: Examine the socioeconomic transformations brought about by the

Mandal Commission case. Analyze the impact of OBC reservations on employment
opportunities, income levels, and social mobility for historically disadvantaged communities.
Assess the effectiveness of these policies in addressing socioeconomic inequalities.

Social Dynamics and Intercommunity Relations: Investigate the effects of the Mandal
Commission case on social interactions and relationships between different communities.
Analyze the tensions and conflicts that arose due to reservations and the ensuing debates.
Explore the role of media, public discourse, and social movements in shaping these
dynamics.

Meritocracy and Affirmative Action: Explore the ongoing debates surrounding meritocracy
and affirmative action in India. Assess the arguments supporting and opposing reservations,
considering ideas of equal opportunities, fairness, and the balance between merit-based
selection and affirmative action. Examine alternative models or policies proposed to address
social inequality.

13
E. BIBLIOGRAPHY

WEBSITES

1. National Commission for Backward Classes,available at http://www.ncbc.nic.in(last visited

on June 9, 2023).

2. https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/reservation-in-India.

3. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA available at https://www.india.gov.in/my-

government/constitution-India (last accessed on 9th June, 2023).

ARTICLES

1. Akash shah 2022 p1,available at http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1331/Critical-

Analysis-on-Reservation-Policy-in-India.html(last visited on June 10, 2023).
2.Theprint2023pp1-3,available at https://theprint.in/yourturn/subscriberwrites-reservation-
policy-in-india-needs-be-more-inclusive-and-aim-for-greater-diversity/672496-p11(last
visited on June 10, 2023).
JOURNAL

1. Parthasarathy, M. (2022). Supreme Court Observer. Creamy Layer: Court in Review

https://www.scobserver.in/journal/creamy-layer-court-in-review.

CASES

1. Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477, 1992 Supp 2 SCR 454.

2. Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan 1995 AIR 448, 1995 SCC (6) 684.

3. Arijit Singh v. State of Punjab1996 (2) SCC 215. 3792-94.

14