Supreme Court Clarifies Data Requirements for Reservation in Promotions: Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 28 January 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 105
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J., B.R. Gavai, J.

How should the government determine if Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) are adequately represented in public services before implementing reservations in promotions? The Supreme Court of India tackled this complex question in a recent judgment, clarifying the requirements for collecting and using quantifiable data to justify such reservations. This case is crucial for understanding the balance between affirmative action and equal opportunity in India. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna, and B.R. Gavai.

Case Background

This case involves a batch of appeals challenging various High Court decisions regarding reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). The core issue revolves around the interpretation and implementation of Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India, which allows the state to make provisions for reservation in promotions with consequential seniority. The appellants, primarily individuals and government entities, challenged the decisions of the High Courts and sought clarification on the data requirements for implementing such reservations. The respondents were various individuals and government entities. The relief sought was a clarification on the parameters for providing reservations in promotions.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the interpretation of the following constitutional provisions:

• Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India:

  This provision 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) of the Constitution of India:

  This provision, inserted by the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, allows the State to make provisions for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favor 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) of the Constitution of India:

  This provision, inserted by the Constitution (Eighty-first Amendment) Act, 2000, allows the State to consider unfilled vacancies of a year reserved for being filled up in that year 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.

• Article 335 of the Constitution of India:

  This provision states that the claims of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, in the making of appointments to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.

These provisions are enabling in nature, granting the State the power to provide reservations while ensuring the efficiency of administration. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of these articles has evolved over time, particularly concerning the need for quantifiable data to justify reservations in promotions.

Arguments

The arguments presented by both sides focused on the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s previous rulings and the practical implications of implementing reservations in promotions.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The arguments presented by both sides were largely based on interpretations of existing laws and previous judgments. However, the appellants’ emphasis on cadre-specific data collection and the respondents’ argument for considering population proportion as a benchmark were notable points of contention.

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 the 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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered various judgments and legal provisions while arriving at its decision. These are categorized below:

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment provides significant clarity on the requirements for implementing reservations in promotions for SCs and STs. The Court addressed each issue by referring to previous judgments and legal principles.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217]: The Court relied on this case to establish that Article 16(4) does not provide for reservation in promotions and that conditions of social and educational backwardness are presumed for SCs and STs.
• Union of India & Ors. v. Virpal Singh Chauhan & Ors. [(1995) 6 SCC 684]: This case was referred to for the “catch-up” rule, which was subsequently amended by the Constitution.
• M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2006) 8 SCC 212]: The Court relied on this case for the principle that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness and inadequacy of representation for providing reservation in promotions.
• Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors. [(2018) 10 SCC 396]: The Court referred to this case for invalidating the requirement of quantifiable data showing backwardness of SCs and STs, but reiterating the need for quantifiable data regarding inadequate representation.
• B.K. Pavitra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(2019) 16 SCC 129] (B.K. Pavitra II): The Court overruled this case on the point of data collection based on ‘groups’ instead of ‘cadres’.
• R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(1995) 2 SCC 745]: The Court relied on this case for the principle that the percentage of posts reserved for Backward Classes has to be strictly followed and that cadre strength is measured by the number of posts comprising the cadre.
• I.C. Golak Nath & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. [(1967) 2 SCR 762]: The Court referred to this case for the doctrine of prospective overruling.
• Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [(1997) 5 SCC 201]: The Court relied on this case for the principle that the Supreme Court has the power to postpone the operation of a judgment and to prospectively overrule a previous ratio.

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 affirmative action with the principles of equality and administrative efficiency. The Court emphasized the importance of data-driven decision-making while also recognizing the practical challenges in implementing reservations. The Court’s reasoning focused on:

• Maintaining the discretion of the State in determining the adequacy of representation.
• Ensuring that the unit of data collection is the cadre to which promotions are made.
• Avoiding retrospective application of the judgment to prevent disruption.
• Upholding the need for periodic review.

The Court’s reasoning was influenced more by legal considerations (60%) than factual aspects (40%), indicating a strong emphasis on upholding the law while addressing the practical implications.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was a blend of legal interpretation, practical considerations, and a desire to maintain a balance between the rights of different groups. The Court’s emphasis on cadre-specific data collection and prospective application of the judgment underscores its commitment to ensuring fairness and avoiding disruption.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“We are of the opinion that there is no yardstick that can be laid down by this Court for determining the adequacy of representation. It is for the State to determine the factors that are relevant for deciding whether there is adequate representation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotional posts. The State is not bound to make reservations in promotions. However, if they wish to do so, they must collect quantifiable data regarding inadequacy of representation. The collection of data has to be qua the cadre to which promotions are made.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2022) provides crucial clarifications on the data requirements for implementing reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). The Court emphasized that:

• The State has discretion in determining the yardstick for assessing the adequacy of representation.
• Data collection must be cadre-specific, focusing on the number of posts in a particular grade.
• The proportion of SCs and STs in the population should not be the sole test for determining adequacy.
• Data collected must be reviewed periodically, with the review period left to the government.
• The law laid down in M. Nagaraj operates prospectively from the date of the judgment.
• Data collection cannot be based on groups of posts; it must be cadre-wise.

This judgment is significant for its reaffirmation of the need for quantifiable data to justify reservations in promotions, while also granting the State flexibility in determining the factors relevant to assess the adequacy of representation. The emphasis on cadre-specific data collection ensures a more targeted approach to affirmative action. The prospective operation of the judgment avoids potential chaos and confusion, providing a clear roadmap for future implementation of reservation policies.