For giving effective implementation to clause (4) of Article 16 that provides equality of opportunity in matters of public employment to people belonging to any backward class, number of Backward Classes Commissions were appointed in some of the States, the recommendations of which had been repeatedly subjected to judicial scrutiny.

Though the President of India appointed the second Backward Classes Commission under the chairmanship of Shri B.P. Mandal as far back as 1st January, 1979 and the Report was submitted in December, 1980 no effective steps were taken for its implementation till the issuance of the two impugned OMs. Having regard to this situation, for the first time the Union of India has issued the Office Memorandum (hereinafter called the ‘O.M.’) in August 1991 and thereafter an amended O.M. in September 1991 on the basis of the recommendations of the Mandal Commission.

Immediately after the announcement of the acceptance of the Report of the Mandal Commission, there were unabated pro as well as anti-reservation agitations and violent societal disturbances virtually paralysing the normal life. It was unfortunate and painful to note that some youths who are intransigent to recognise the doctrine of equality in matters of public employment and who under the mistaken impression that ‘wrinkles and gray hairs’ could not do any thing in this matter, actively participated in the agitation.

Similarly, another section of people suffering from a fear psychosis that the Mandal recommendations may not at all be implemented entered the fray of the agitation. Thus, both the pro and anti-reservationists on being detonated and inflamed by the ruffled feelings that their future in public employment is bleak raised a number of gnawing doubts which in turn sensationalised the issue.

Their pent up fury led to an orgy of violence resulting in loss of innocent life and damaged the public properties.

In fact, a three-Judges Bench of Supreme Court comprised of Ranganath Misra, C.J. and K.N. Singh and M. H. Kania, JJ taking note of the widespread violence, by their order dated 21st September 1990 made the following appeal to the general public and particularly the student community :

“After we made order on 11th September, 1990, we had appealed to counsel and those who were in the Court room to take note of the fact that the dispute has now come to the apex court and it is necessary that parties and the people who were agitated over this question should maintain a disciplined posture and create an atmosphere where the question can be dispassionately decided by Supreme Court……..There is no justification to be panicky over any situation and if any one’s rights are prejudiced in any manner, certainly relief would be available at the appropriate stage and nothing can happen in between which would deter Supreme Court from exercising its power in an effective manner.”

Reference

The wording is from the judgment Indira Sawhney v Union of India 1993 (1) SCT 448