Supreme court of India has made several important judgements in the past. Because of the apex court, many people got justice and there is a firm belief of many Indian citizens. One of such popular case is the Indra Sawhney case where you have to understand the Indra Sawhney case 1992 SC judgements. This was the case where we can see how cast and categories in Indian citizen are playing a crucial role.
Another case that we are going to discuss is the L Chandra Kumar case where you have to read L Chandra Kumar case 1997 SC judgements. This case helped in determining whether Articles 32A and 323B are legal, which exclude the High Court from handling service matters. So, if you are an UPSC aspirant, there are certain essential knowledge that you have to look over and gain some valuable insights.
Indra Sawhney case
As far as reservation is concerned, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indra Sawhney v Union Of India & Ors was a landmark. Here is a summary of this important judgment.
● Under Article 340 of the Constitution, the then Prime Minister Shri Morarji Desai appointed the second Backward Classes Commission in 1979.
● The Commission was headed by B.P. Mandal and was tasked with investigating the social and educational backwardness of Indians.
● As a result of the Commission’s final report, 27 percent of government jobs were reserved for these castes in 1980.
● The collapse of the (JP) Janata Party government worsened this issue resulting into no implementation of the report.
Following are the rules laid out in the court’s judgment
● The caste system must also be considered when identifying backward classes under Article 16(4).
● There is no exception to clause 1 in article 16(4). Instead, it is an instance of classification as outlined in clause 1.
● In Article 16(4), backward classes were distinguished from socially and educationally backward classes.
● Creamy layers were introduced and instructed to be excluded when identifying backward classes.
● Backward classes can be classified into backward and more backward classes under Article 16(4).
L Chandra Kumar case
As a result of Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, the legality of Articles 32A and 323B was determined, which excluded High Court jurisdiction over service matters. There is a notable difference between courts and tribunals in the decision.
● Tribunals cannot and will not replace the High Courts’ judicial review power, which is granted by the Constitution, as the central topic of the entire decision. While the High Court performs its duties, the Tribunals support it. In addition, the Tribunals will be supervised by the High Courts and cannot be considered independent.
● As part of the Constitution’s basic framework, articles 32 and 226 confer judicial review power to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
● In addition, the Supreme Court and the High Court supervise these Tribunals as part of the Constitution’s core structure.
● Judiciary review of legislative action taken by subordinate judges or Tribunals established under regular law cannot be excluded from the High Courts and Supreme Court. However, they can play a complementary – rather than a replacement – role in such issues.
● It is preferable that all such Tribunals are supervised by a single nodal ministry until an autonomous body can be established to administer all such Tribunals. The Ministry of Law should be called that for a number of reasons.