Supreme Court Clarifies Data Collection for SC/ST Promotion Reservations: Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2022)

Date of the Judgment: January 28, 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 78
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J., B.R. Gavai, J.
The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of appeals concerning the contentious issue of reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). The core question revolved around the methodology for collecting quantifiable data to justify these reservations, as mandated by previous rulings. This judgment clarifies the unit for data collection and the prospective application of the principles laid down in M. Nagaraj vs. Union of India, while also addressing the sampling method for data collection. The bench was composed of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, and B.R. Gavai, with the majority opinion authored by Justice L. Nageswara Rao.

Case Background

The case originated from a long-standing debate about the implementation of reservation policies in promotions for SCs and STs. The Supreme Court, in Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., had initially ruled against reservations in promotions. However, subsequent constitutional amendments, specifically the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, introduced Article 16(4-A) to allow for such reservations. This was further amended by the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001, to include consequential seniority.

Later, the Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000, inserted Article 16(4-B) to address backlog vacancies. These amendments and the interpretation of Article 16(4-A) were challenged, leading to the Supreme Court’s judgment in M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., which upheld the amendments but mandated the collection of quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequate representation. The present case arises from various challenges to the implementation of these reservation policies in different High Courts, which were then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court noted that various High Courts had dealt with matters challenging the reservation in promotions provided by the Central and State Governments to SCs and STs, citing violations of the principles laid down in M. Nagaraj. Due to the broad similarities in the issues involved, all the cases were tagged together. The Court directed the Advocates-on-Record for each State to submit a note identifying the issues, and the Attorney General was requested to hold a conference to finalize the issues for determination.

The Court clarified that it would not entertain arguments for reconsideration of the law laid down in M. Nagaraj, as a constitution bench in Jarnail Singh had already rejected such a request. The cases were then bifurcated into eleven categories, and the Court proceeded to hear submissions on the common issues identified.

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 clause enables 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, for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes that are not adequately represented in the services under the State. The current text of Article 16(4-A) is:
  
  “(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 of a year reserved for SCs/STs as a separate class to be filled in succeeding years, without considering them for the 50% ceiling on reservations. The text of Article 16(4-B) is as follows:
  
  “(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.”

The Court also referred to Article 335 of the Constitution, which mandates that the claims of SCs and STs shall be taken into consideration, consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of administration.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:

• Arguments of the Petitioners (General Category Candidates):
  • The petitioners argued that the State must provide quantifiable data showing the backwardness of SCs and STs, and inadequate representation in each cadre before providing reservation in promotion.
  • They contended that the data collected by the State should be cadre-specific and not based on groups of posts.
  • They argued that the principle of proportionate representation should be considered while determining the adequacy of representation.
  • They also contended that there should be a periodic review of the data to determine the continued need for reservation in promotions.
  • They argued that the judgment in M. Nagaraj should be applied retrospectively, which would invalidate all promotions made without proper data collection.
• Arguments of the Respondents (Reserved Category Candidates) and the Union of India:
  • The respondents argued that the judgment in M. Nagaraj should be applied prospectively.
  • They contended that the State has the discretion to determine the criteria for adequacy of representation.
  • They argued that the unit for data collection should be the service or group of posts and not necessarily the cadre.
  • They submitted that the proportion of SCs and STs to the population of India should be taken as the test for determining adequacy of representation.
  • They supported the need for a periodic review of the data, with some suggesting a 10-year interval.

The learned Attorney General for India argued that the Court should lay down the yardstick for measuring adequacy of representation to avoid multiple litigations. He also submitted that the proportion of SCs and STs to the population of India should be the test for determining whether they are adequately represented in promotional posts.

Submissions Table

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 & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (“B.K. Pavitra II”)?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment addressed each of the issues framed, providing clarity on the interpretation and implementation of reservation policies in promotions for SCs and STs.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court’s view on key authorities is as follows:

• Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217]*: The Court upheld the principle of prospective operation as laid down in this case.
• M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2006) 8 SCC 212]*: The Court clarified that the principles laid down in this case would operate prospectively.
• Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. [(2018) 10 SCC 396]*: The Court reiterated that the requirement of quantifiable data on backwardness of SCs/STs was invalidated by this judgment.
• R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(1995) 2 SCC 745]*: The Court reaffirmed that cadre strength is measured by the number of posts comprising the cadre.
• B.K. Pavitra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2019) 16 SCC 129]*: The Court overruled the conclusion in this case that data collection can be done on the basis of groups and not cadres.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by the need to balance the constitutional mandate of reservation for SCs and STs with the principles of equality and administrative efficiency. The Court emphasized that the collection of quantifiable data is essential for justifying reservations in promotions. The Court also aimed to avoid unsettling the existing seniority and promotions of a large number of employees.

The Court’s decision to make the judgment prospective was influenced by the potential chaos and confusion that would result from a retrospective application, given the large number of promotions that had already been made. The Court also wanted to ensure that its decisions are based on sound legal principles and do not unduly disrupt the administration of justice.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, clarified several crucial aspects of reservation in promotions for SCs and STs. The Court held that the unit for data collection is the cadre, not the entire service or a group of posts. It also clarified that the proportion of SCs and STs to the population of India is not the sole test for determining inadequate representation. The Court also mandated a periodic review of the data. The judgment in M. Nagaraj was given prospective effect, and the Court rejected the need for data to show the backwardness of SCs and STs, reiterating the principle laid down in Jarnail Singh. The Court also overruled the conclusion in B.K. Pavitra II regarding data collection based on groups.

This judgment provides much-needed clarity on the practical implementation of reservation policies in promotions, ensuring that the constitutional mandate of reservation is upheld while also maintaining administrative efficiency. The Court’s focus on cadre-specific data collection and the prospective application of its rulings seeks to balance the interests of all stakeholders and avoid undue disruptions in the public sector.

The ruling has significant implications for both the government and public sector employees. The government must now ensure that data collection is cadre-specific and periodically reviewed. Public sector employees, particularly those from SC/ST communities, will continue to benefit from reservation in promotions, while the general category employees will have greater clarity on the process and criteria for promotions.