Supreme Court clarifies data collection for reservation in promotions: Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 January 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 64
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J., B.R. Gavai, J.

How should the government collect data to justify reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs)? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a batch of cases, focusing on the correct methodology for gathering quantifiable data to ensure adequate representation in public services. This judgment clarifies the parameters for data collection, emphasizing the importance of cadre-based analysis and setting aside previous interpretations that allowed for broader group-based data.

The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, and B.R. Gavai. The judgment was authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao. This ruling seeks to provide a clear framework for implementing reservation policies while adhering to constitutional principles.

Case Background

The core issue revolves around the implementation of reservations in promotions for SCs and STs in government jobs. This matter has been under scrutiny since the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., which initially ruled against reservations in promotions. Subsequent constitutional amendments, specifically the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, which introduced Article 16(4-A), and the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001, which further amended Article 16(4-A) to include consequential seniority, sought to address this.

The debate intensified with the introduction of Article 16(4-B) by the Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000, which allowed unfilled reserved vacancies of a year to be carried forward without being subject to the 50% reservation ceiling in total vacancies. The Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. upheld these amendments but mandated that the state must collect quantifiable data showing the backwardness and inadequate representation of SCs and STs before implementing reservation in promotions.

This requirement of quantifiable data led to several challenges in High Courts, where various state and central government policies on reservation in promotions were contested. These cases were then brought before the Supreme Court, leading to the present judgment. The primary concern was the method of collecting data to justify these reservations.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The judgment notes that several High Courts have dealt with cases where reservation in promotions provided by the Central and State Governments to SCs and STs have been challenged. These challenges were primarily based on the argument that the reservation policies violated the principles laid down in M. Nagaraj, particularly the requirement for quantifiable data. The judgments of these High Courts were then brought before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court also mentions that the judgment in M. Nagaraj was referred to a larger bench for reconsideration in State of Tripura & Ors. v. Jayanta Chakraborty & Ors. and State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Vijay Ghogre & Ors.. However, the request for a seven-judge bench was not entertained in Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors., although the court clarified that the requirement for quantifiable data on backwardness was not needed for SCs and STs.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, specifically clauses (4), (4-A), and (4-B).

• Article 16(4): This provision empowers the State to make provisions for reservation in appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
• Article 16(4-A): Inserted by the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, this clause allows the State to make provisions for reservation in matters of promotion with consequential seniority, in favor of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, if they are not adequately represented in the services under the State. The current text of Article 16(4-A) reads:

  “(4-A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State.”

• Article 16(4-B): Inserted by the Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000, this clause allows the State to treat unfilled vacancies reserved for a particular year as a separate class of vacancies to be filled in succeeding years, without being considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for the purpose of determining the 50% ceiling on reservations. The text of Article 16(4-B) is:

  “(4-B) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from considering any unfilled vacancies of a year which are reserved for being filled up in that year in accordance with any provision for reservation made under clause (4) or clause (4-A) as a separate class of vacancies to be filled up in any succeeding year or years and such class of vacancies shall not be considered together with the vacancies of the year in which they are being filled up for determining the ceiling of fifty per cent reservation on total number of vacancies of that year.”

These provisions are enabling provisions, allowing the state to make reservations but not mandating them. The Supreme Court has consistently held that any such provision must be backed by quantifiable data showing backwardness and inadequate representation, while also ensuring administrative efficiency as per Article 335 of the Constitution.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be categorized into the following key areas:

• Yardstick for Quantifiable Data:
  • The Attorney General argued that the Court should lay down specific criteria for determining the adequacy of representation to avoid multiple litigations.
  • The Court, however, maintained that the determination of adequacy of representation is best left to the discretion of the State, based on local conditions and the specific promotional posts in question.
• Unit for Data Collection:
  • The Court clarified that the unit for collecting quantifiable data should be the ‘cadre’ and not the entire service or ‘group’ of posts.
  • The Court referred to various service rules and previous judgments to define ‘cadre’ as a specific grade of posts, emphasizing that each grade should have a separate roster.
• Proportionate Representation:
  • The Attorney General suggested that the proportion of SCs and STs in the population of India should be the test for determining adequate representation.
  • The Court rejected this, stating that it is for the State to assess the inadequacy of representation based on relevant factors.
• Time Period for Review:
  • All parties agreed that the data collected should be reviewed periodically.
  • The Court left the determination of a reasonable review period to the government.
• Prospective Operation of M. Nagaraj:
  • The Attorney General and counsel for reserved categories argued that the law laid down in M. Nagaraj should operate prospectively from the date of the judgment.
  • The Court agreed, stating that making the principles effective from 1995 would be detrimental to the interests of many civil servants.
• Sampling Methods:
  • The Court held that data collection should be cadre-based and not group-based, thus disagreeing with the sampling method approved in B.K. Pavitra II.
  • The Court clarified that while sampling might be a valid statistical method, the data for reservation in promotions must be collected with respect to each cadre.

The innovative aspect of the arguments was the emphasis on the need for a clear, consistent, and practical method for data collection, which led the Court to clarify the unit for data collection as the ‘cadre’ and not the ‘group.’

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following six issues for determination:

1. What is the yardstick by which, according to M. Nagaraj, one would arrive at quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in public employment?
2. What is the unit with respect to which quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation is required to be collected?
3. Whether the proportion of the population of SCs and STs to the population of India should be taken to be the test for determining adequacy of representation in promotional posts for the purposes of Article 16(4-A)?
4. Should there be a time period for reviewing inadequacy of representation?
5. Whether the judgment in M. Nagaraj can be said to operate prospectively?
6. Whether quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation can be collected on the basis of sampling methods, as held by this Court in B.K. Pavitra II?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Court’s judgment can be summarized as follows:

The Court’s view on the authorities:

• Indra Sawhney: Cited to establish the initial position against reservations in promotions, which was later amended by constitutional provisions.
• M. Nagaraj: Upheld in part, with the clarification that the requirement for quantifiable data on backwardness is not needed for SCs and STs. The Court also clarified that the unit for data collection is the ‘cadre’ and not the ‘group’.
• R.K. Sabharwal: Followed to define ‘cadre’ and to emphasize that the cadre strength is measured by the number of posts comprising the cadre.
• B.K. Pavitra II: Overruled on the point of data collection based on ‘groups’, holding that data must be collected cadre-wise. The Court reasoned that this was necessary to ensure accurate assessment of representation in specific grades and to align with the principles laid down in M. Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily influenced by the need to balance the constitutional mandate of reservation with the practicalities of implementation and the need for accurate data. The Court emphasized that while providing reservations, the State must ensure that the data used to justify such reservations is specific and relevant to the cadre in question. The Court’s reasoning also reflected a concern for avoiding disruption and ensuring smooth functioning of the public services.

The Court’s decision was also influenced by the need to avoid chaos and protect the interests of civil servants who may have already benefited from promotions based on previous policies. This is evident in the Court’s decision to give the judgment prospective effect.

The ratio of fact to law in the judgment is approximately 20:80, with a strong emphasis on legal principles and interpretation of constitutional provisions.

Ratio Decidendi, Obiter Dicta and Final Order

The ratio decidendi of the judgment can be summarized as follows:

• The unit for collection of quantifiable data for reservation in promotions must be the ‘cadre’ and not the entire service or ‘group’ of posts.
• The determination of the adequacy of representation of SCs and STs is best left to the discretion of the State, based on local conditions and the specific promotional posts in question.
• The law laid down in M. Nagaraj operates prospectively from the date of the judgment in Jarnail Singh.

The obiter dicta in the judgment includes:

• The Court’s observation that the determination of a reasonable review period for the data is best left to the government.
• The Court’s observation that the requirement of quantifiable data for backwardness is not needed for SCs and STs.

The final order of the Court is as follows:

• The judgment in B.K. Pavitra II, which approved data collection based on ‘groups’, is overruled.
• The State is directed to collect quantifiable data for reservation in promotions cadre-wise.
• The judgments of the High Courts that are inconsistent with the present judgment are set aside.
• The State is directed to review the data periodically.

Flowchart

Impact of the Judgment

The judgment has several significant impacts on the implementation of reservation policies in India:

• Clarity on Data Collection: The judgment provides much-needed clarity on the method of collecting quantifiable data for reservation in promotions. By specifying that data collection must be cadre-wise, it ensures a more accurate assessment of representation in specific grades.
• Overruling of B.K. Pavitra II: The overruling of B.K. Pavitra II removes the ambiguity created by the approval of group-based data collection. This ensures that data collection is more specific and relevant to the cadre in question.
• Prospective Operation: The prospective operation of the judgment protects the interests of civil servants who may have already benefited from promotions based on previous policies. This avoids potential chaos and disruption in the public services.
• Discretion to the State: The judgment leaves the determination of the adequacy of representation to the discretion of the State, based on local conditions and the specific promotional posts in question. This allows for flexibility in the implementation of reservation policies.
• Periodic Review: The judgment mandates a periodic review of the data, ensuring that the reservation policies remain relevant and effective over time.

Examples of Impact:

• Scenario 1: A state government was collecting data based on the entire ‘group’ of posts in a department. After this judgment, the state government now has to collect data for each ‘cadre’ within that department. For example, if there are multiple grades of engineers (Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer), the data must be collected separately for each grade.
• Scenario 2: A central government department had implemented reservation in promotions based on data collected through sampling methods across all departments. Now, the department must collect cadre-wise data to justify the reservation in promotions. This would mean collecting data separately for different cadres such as Section Officers, Under Secretaries, and Deputy Secretaries.

Critical Assessment

Strengths of the Judgment:

• Clarity on Cadre-Based Data: The judgment’s most significant strength is its clarification that data collection must be cadre-based. This ensures a more accurate assessment of representation in specific grades and addresses the ambiguity created by previous judgments.
• Practical Approach: By leaving the determination of the adequacy of representation to the State, the judgment adopts a practical approach that allows for flexibility in the implementation of reservation policies.
• Prospective Operation: The decision to give the judgment prospective effect is a pragmatic step that avoids potential chaos and protects the interests of civil servants.
• Addresses Ambiguity: The judgment effectively addresses the ambiguity created by the conflicting interpretations of M. Nagaraj and B.K. Pavitra II.

Weaknesses of the Judgment:

• Lack of Specific Yardstick: While leaving the determination of adequacy to the State provides flexibility, it also leaves room for potential inconsistencies and future litigation. A more specific yardstick could have provided greater clarity.
• Potential for Misinterpretation: The term “cadre” is not always clearly defined in all service rules, which could lead to misinterpretations and disputes.
• Burden on States: The requirement to collect cadre-wise data may place a significant burden on State governments, particularly those with complex service structures.

Potential for Future Litigation:

• Definition of ‘Cadre’: Disputes may arise regarding the definition of ‘cadre’ in specific service rules, leading to litigation on whether data collection is being done correctly.
• Adequacy of Representation: The lack of a specific yardstick for assessing the adequacy of representation could lead to challenges in High Courts, requiring further clarification from the Supreme Court.
• Implementation Challenges: The practical implementation of cadre-wise data collection may face challenges, leading to litigation from civil servants or government departments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2022) is a significant step towards clarifying the methodology for collecting quantifiable data for reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). By specifying that data collection must be cadre-based and not group-based, the Court has provided a more accurate and relevant framework for implementing reservation policies. The judgment also balances the constitutional mandate of reservation with the practicalities of implementation and the need to protect the interests of civil servants.

While the judgment has its strengths, including the clarity on cadre-based data and the pragmatic approach of leaving the determination of adequacy to the State, it also has weaknesses, such as the lack of a specific yardstick and the potential for misinterpretation of the term ‘cadre’. These weaknesses may lead to future litigation, requiring further clarification from the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, the judgment provides a much-needed framework for implementing reservation policies in promotions, but its success will depend on the careful implementation by the State governments and the resolution of potential disputes that may arise in the future.