Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India and Others
I.A. No.13 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 265 OF 2006 -- (With WP (Civil) Nos. 269/2006, 598/2006, 35/2007 and 29/2007)
Summary
In April 2006, the Indian parliament passed a bill to bring out an amendment in the constitution to provide for nearly 27% reservation of seats for students from the ‘Other Backward Classes (OBC) segment in institutes of higher learning in India. This would have reduced the seats for a general, unreserved candidate to about 50% (after taking into account other reserved seats). The validity of the amendment was challenged on the grounds that the Union of India failed to perform the constitutional and legal duties toward the citizenry, and that the Act would have the effect of dividing the country on caste basis. It was alleged that the act would lead to chaos, confusion, and anarchy which would have destructive impact on the peaceful atmosphere in the educational and other institutions and would seriously affect social and communal harmony. The constitutional guarantee of equality and equal opportunity shall be seriously prejudiced.
India's Supreme Court ruled against the reservations on the Act on two grounds. First, it held that the exact proportion of OBCs in India's population was not accurately identified, but was based on projections made in 1978 by a specially appointed official commission (Mandal Commission). The Commission projected that 52% of the population belonged in the OBC category, but the Court found that the methodology used to reach this figure was flawed. Second, the Court held that setting quotas or reservations might not be an appropriate means of promoting diversity or affirmation action because it discriminates against "meritorious" candidates who do not suffer social disadvantage on account of caste, race or ethnicity.
Comment
This is a regressive judgment by India's Supreme Court which seriously hampers the government's efforts to promote affirmative action. It contradicts the rationale of a 1992 judgment of a much larger bench, composed of nine judges, which upheld such reservations for the low castes (called Other Backward Classes or OBCs in officialese) in central government jobs. It has been widely criticized for dismissing the arguably reliable findings of the Mandal Commission and for basing part of its judgment on the rationale of Grutter v. Bollinger, a controversial affirmative action U.S. Supreme Court case.