Yahoo India Web Search

Search results

  1. People also ask

  2. Jun 7, 2023 · The Mandal Commission Case (Indra Sawhney v Union of India) was a landmark case on reservation for backward classes in government jobs. The Supreme Court upheld the 27% quota for backward classes, but struck down the 10% quota for economically backward classes among the higher castes.

  3. The Mandal Commission or the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Commission (SEBC), was established in India in 1979 by the Janata Party government under Prime Minister Morarji Desai with a mandate to "identify the socially or educationally backward classes" of India.

  4. The Indra Sawhney case was a landmark judgement by the Supreme Court in 1992 that upheld the constitutional validity of the Mandal Commission report and the 27 percent reservation for backward classes in government jobs. The case also laid down the criteria and limits for identifying and classifying backward classes and reservation under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution.

    • 35 min
  5. Mar 13, 2024 · This landmark case was the miracle child of Indian judicial pragmatism, conceived at the backdrop of nationwide chaos and violent protests against the implementation of the infamous Mandal Commission Report’s 27 per cent quota for the socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs) in all the central government jobs and public ...

    • Rachit Garg
  6. Oct 19, 2023 · A landmark case on reservations for socially and economically backward classes in India. The Supreme Court upheld the Mandal Commission's recommendations based on caste, but capped the reservation at 50% and excluded the creamy layer.

  7. The chief mandate of the Mandal Commission was to identify the socially or educationally backward classes of India and to consider reservations as a means to address caste inequality and discrimination. The Commission submitted its report to the President on 31st December 1980.

  8. Union of India also known as the Mandal verdict was an Indian landmark public interest litigation case delivered by a 9-judge constitution bench. [1] [2] Facts. The constitution recognized social and educational backwardness, but not economic backwardness.