Indian Constitution. But considering the backward classes a NET Decided facial provision was inserted in the same Art. In clause 4 i. E.
, in Art. 1 6(4), This section empowers the State to make a special provision for those backward classes who in the opinion of the State are not adequately represented in the service under the State. But in these connection two questions reasonable explores our mind that: i. Who will be designated as a backward class people for the purpose of this s section? & ii.
Who will be treated to be inadequate in the employment under State?Because there were no suitable answers of these two questions given under t he provision of the Constitution. By taking this advantage the ruling party who were in the pop were at Centre utilized this provisions for their own political benefit. But this case (which is al so famously known as MONDALE COMMISSION’S case) plays an important role to find out t he answer of these two questions.
So it is very important for us to know the fact, Issue, if endings & judgment of this case which are going to be discussed on subset intently. 2) Facts Of This Case : ˜ The facts of the cases were as follows.On January 1, 1979 the KANATA GO’. В« rent headed by the Prime Minister Sir MARJORAM IDEAS appointed the second Back’ radar Classes (By a Presidential Order under Article 340 of the Constitution of India the first Backward Class Commission known as KAKA Salesclerk’s Commission was s tap on January 29, 1 953 and it submitted its report on March 30, , 1955 listing out 23 9 castes as socially and educationally backward on the basis of criteria evolved by it, but he Central Government did not accept that report and shelved it in the cold storage) Co omission under Article 340 of the Constitution under the chairmanship of Sir B.P. Amanda (MFC to investigate the Socially & Educationally Backward Classes within the territory of & commended Steps to be taken for their advancement including the nesses. Rye provision which are to be required to be made for them for the fulfillment of their stats s by giving equal opportunity in the public employment.
˜ The commission submitted its report on December, 1980 in this report the commission identified about 3743 castes as socially & educationally backward classes& re emended for reservation of 27% in Government jobs. ˜ In the meantime due to internal disturbance within the party the GOBO. Co apses & by thus it couldn’t implement the recommendations made by AMANDA COMMIT SOON& after that the CONGRESS GOBO. Added by the Prime Minister SMS.
NADIR INDIA came to the power at centre. But shedding implement the AMANDA COMMIT! ONES report till 1989. In 1 989 the CONGRESS GOBO. Toppled due to the defeat of e general http://www. Assertiveness’s. Com/article/print. PH? Art_id=1457 1/8 election.
˜ After winning that election KANATA DEAL again came to the power & decided implement the report of the commission.After that then Prime Minister V. P. IS NIGH issued office of memorandum on AUGUST 13, 1990& reserved 27% seats for the Socio ally & Backward classes.
This cause effect in civil disturbance throughout the INDIA. From various Pl sees anti Reservation movement rocked the nation for 3 months. It results a huge loss of persons & property. ˜ A writ petition was filed from the BAR ASSOCIATION OF THE SUPREME COURT. Challenging the validity of Office of Memorandum issued by the GOBO ˜ The case was ultimately decided by the 5 Judges bench.They issued a stay order till the final disposal of the case on October 1, 1990. Unfortunately the meanwhile SANTIAGO. Again collapsed due to defections & in 1991 by the Parliament Rye elections & the Congress again formed the GOBO.
At Centre. ˜ To tackle the situation & also for the political gain then Prime Minister P. V. ANARCHISM RAW issued another office of memorandum by making 2 changes i ) by introducing the economic criterion in granting reservation within 27% in Gobo. Job. Ii) Reserved another 10% of vacancies for the socially & educationally backward classes. That is total 37% (27% 10%) The judge’s bench referred this matter to the 9 judges bench who issued a notice to the Gobo.
To show cause the criteria upon which the GOBO. Has proposed to make 27% reservation for them. But in spite betaking several adjournments the GOBO. o f INDIA has failed to explain the criteria mentioned in the office of memorandum.
3) Issue Framed By The Court: In this case the court framed the following issues: 1.Whether Article 1 6(4) is an exception to Article 16(1 ) and would be exhausts eve of the right to reservation of posts in services under the State? 2. What would be the content of the phrase ‘Backward Class” in Article 16(4) o f the Constitution and whether caste by itself could constitute a class and whether economic criterion by itself could identify a class for Article 1 6(4) and whether “Back d Classes” in Article 16(4) would include the “weaker sections” mentioned in Article 46 well? 3.
If economic criterion by itself could not constitute a Backward Class UN;Article 16(4), whether reservation of posts in services under the State, based exclusively economic criterion would be covered by Article 1 ) of the Constitution? 4. Can the extent of reservation of posts in the services under the State aunt Article 1 6(4) or, if permitted under Article 1 6(1) and 16(4) together, exceed 50 % of the TTS in a cadre or Service under the State or exceed 50% of appointments in a cadre or set e in any particular year and can such extent of reservation be determined without ( rearming the inadequacy of representation of each class in the different categories and sees of Services under the State? . Does Article 16(4) permit the classification of ‘Backward Classes’ into Back radar Classes and Most Backward Classes Or permit classification among them based on anomic or other considerations? Http://win. Lasciviousness’s. Com/article/print. PH? Art_id=1457 2/8 317/201 5 print Article : Indri Shawnee & Others Vs.
. Logion of India 6. Would making “any provision” under Article 1 6(4) for reservation “by the ate” necessarily have to be by law made by the legislatures of the State or by ala made by Parliament?Or could such provisions be made by an executive order? 7. Will the extent of judicial review be limited or restricted in regard to the i notification of Backward Classes and the percentage of reservations made for such classes demonstrably perverse identification or a demonstrably unreasonable Perl tag? 8. Would reservation of appointments or posts “in favor of any Backward as” be restricted to the initial appointment to the post or would it extend to promo ones as well? 9.Whether the matter should be sent back to the Figured Bench? 4) Argument Made On Behalf Of The Petitioner On behalf of the Petitioner following arguments were made by learned CONVENIENCE, Mr..
N. A. Appalachia, Mr.. K. K. Pentagonal, SMS.
Small P pup and Mr.. P. P. Raw assisted by a battery of layers appearing for the petitioner: l. Firstly, the recommendations made by the MONDALE COMMISSION are mind exactly provoking the evil idea of CASTE SYSTEM which is nothing but considered as against the idea of the secularism.According to thumbwheel be dangerous and disastrous for the rapid development of the Indian society as a whole marching towards the goal of e welfare state.
They also contended that the identification of Cubes by the Commission on the basis of caste system is bizarre and barren of force, much less exposing hollowness Therefore, the MOMS issued on the strength Of the Amanda Report which is solely based the caste criterion arc violate of Article 16(2). II. Secondly, the report was not solely based upon the caste criteria but three other factors are also considered i. .
Social, educational and economic backwardness but Vying more importance rightly too to the social backwardness as “having a direct cones ounce of caste status. Ill. Thirdly, the present Report based on 1 931 census can never serve a corn t basis for identifying the ‘backward class’, that therefore, a fresh Commission under A clue 340(1) of he Constitution is required to be appointed to make a fresh wide survey HTH shout the length and breadth of the country and submit a new list of Bobs (other bad radar classes) on the basis of the present day Census.
IV.Fourthly, if the recommendations of the Commission are implemented, IL would result in the substandard replacing the standard and the reins of power passing FRR m meritocracy to mediocrity. V. Fifthly, it will be in demutualization and discontent and that it would revival e caste system, and cleave the nation into two forward and backward and open up ewe vistas for internecine conflict and Pissarro forces, and make backwardness a vested i interest.
VI. Sixthly, the argument that the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission would result in demonstration of the meritorious candidates AP appearing for the public employment.VII. Seventeen, the ‘Equal protection’ clause prohibits the State from making u unreasonable discrimination in providing preferences and facilities for any section of its Poe pile. Http://win. Egalitarianism’s.
Com/article/print. PH? Art_id=1457 3/8 VIII. Eighty, the arguments criticizing the Report is that the said Report virtual Ill rewrites he Constitution and in effect buries 50 fathoms deep the ideal Of equality an d that if the recommendations are given effect to and implemented, the efficiency of admit ministration will come to a grinding halt. ) Arguments Made On Behalf Of The Respondent I. E. , Gobo.
Of India : l. Firstly, if the above argument is accepted it will result in negation of the just claim of the Cubes to avail the benefit of Articles 1 6(4) which is a fundamental right. II.
Secondly, that the attack which was trough from the petitioner side that HTH s report was totally based upon the census report made on 1931 report is completely false baseless because A perusal of the Report itself indicates that the 1931 census does not have even a remote connection with the identification of Bobs.But on the other hand, the y are identified only on the basis of the countywide coeducational field survey a ND the census report of 1961 particularly for the identification of primitive tribes, ABA original tribes, hill tribes, forest tribes and indigenous tribes. Ill. Thirdly, the Commission cannot be said to have ignored this factual position n and found fault with for relying on 1931 census. In fact, this position is made clear by the Commission itself in Chapter XII Of its Report. However Systematic coastwise enumeration of population was introduced by the Registrar General of India in 1881 and disco mutinied in 1931.
In view of this, figures of coastwise population beyond 1931 are not via label. IV. Fourthly, the commission only went through the census report made on 19 31 with intention to gain an idea of communities population figures from the census s records of 1931 and, then grouped them into broad stonecutters and religious groups.
T hose collectivists were subsequently aggregated under five major heads i. E. i) Such dulled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; (ii) Nothing communities, Religious Groups, etc. (iii) F award Hindu Castes and Communities; (iv) Backward Hindu Castes and Communities ; and (v) Backward Nothing Communities.
In this connection the RESPONDENT cited example of “BALLARD CASE” where the Court considered the census report made on 1931. V. Fifthly, the Commission only after deeply considering the social, education and economic backwardness of various classes of citizens of our country in the leg HTH of the various propositions and tests laid down by this Court had submitted its Rep t enumerating various classes of persons who are to be treated as Bobs.The recommendation ones made in the present Report after a long lull since the submission Of the Report by the First Backward Classes Commission, are supportive of affirmative action programmer holding g the members of the historically disadvantaged groups for centuries to catch up with the stay naiads of competition set up by a well advanced society.
VI. As a matter of fact, the Report wanted to reserve 52% of all the posts in the e Central Government for Bobs commensurate with their ratio in the population. Howe ever, in deference to legal limitation it has recommended a reservation of 27% only eve en though the population of Bobs is almost twice this figure.
VII.Pointing out one attack made on behalf of the Petitioners if the com mission’s report is implemented then it result in the substandard replacing the standard d& also demonstration of the meritorious candidates appearing for the public employ meet is totally false & base upon false assumption because the very object of Article 1 6(4) is to ensure equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and give adequate re reservation to those who have been placed in a very discontent position from time mimeo Arial on account of sociological reasons.