The question asks to identify the chairman of the Second Backward Classes Commission, famously known as the Mandal Commission. This requires knowledge of significant commissions and their chairpersons in Indian history, particularly concerning social justice and reservations.
B) B. P. Mandal was the chairman of the Second Backward Classes Commission, which is popularly known as the Mandal Commission. His report led to significant policy changes regarding reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in India.
The question asks to identify which argument was NOT raised by Indra Sawhney against the 1990 Office Memorandum. This requires knowledge of the key arguments presented in the Indra Sawhney case (also known as the Mandal Commission case).
Therefore, the argument about freedom of religion was not one of the principal arguments raised by Indra Sawhney.
D) That reservations violated the fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25 — This argument is unrelated to the issues debated in the Indra Sawhney case, which focused on equality of opportunity, criteria for backwardness, and administrative efficiency concerning caste-based reservations.
The question asks about the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 16(4) in the landmark Indra Sawhney judgment, specifically its relationship with Article 16(1). Understanding the core principles laid down in this judgment is crucial for answering this question.
Correct Option: D) Not an exception to Article 16(1) but an emphatic restatement of the principle of equality of opportunity embodied in it
This option accurately reflects the Supreme Court's view in the Indra Sawhney case. The Court held that Article 16(4) is a facet of Article 16(1) and 16(2), providing a mechanism to achieve substantive equality for backward classes who are inadequately represented in public services. It is a means to make the equality of opportunity a reality for all, including those who have historically been disadvantaged.
The question asks about the percentage of reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in central government jobs that was upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark Indra Sawhney case. This case is crucial for understanding reservation policies in India.
B) 27 percent - The Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case upheld the 27% reservation for OBCs in central government jobs, as recommended by the Mandal Commission.
The question asks about the 'creamy layer' concept, its origin, and its meaning. This concept is a crucial aspect of reservation policy in India, specifically concerning backward classes. Understanding the landmark Indra Sawhney judgment is key to answering this question.
Correct Option: A) Socially and economically advanced members within a backward class who must be excluded from reservation benefits. This option correctly defines the 'creamy layer' as established by the Indra Sawhney judgment, which aimed to ensure that reservation benefits are directed towards the most deserving and genuinely backward sections.
The question asks about the application of the 'creamy layer' exclusion principle as established by the Indra Sawhney judgment. This principle aims to exclude the affluent sections from reservation benefits within a particular category. Understanding the specific categories to which this principle was initially applied by the Supreme Court is key.
Correct Option: B) Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and not to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes at the time of the judgment