Supreme Court clarifies data requirements for SC/ST promotion reservations: Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 807

Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI; Kurian Joseph, J; R.F. Nariman, J; Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J; Indu Malhotra, J. This was a unanimous decision.

Does the government need to show specific data proving that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are backward before giving them job promotions? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this important question about affirmative action in public employment. This case clarifies the extent to which the government must justify its policies of reservation in promotions for SCs and STs.

This judgment was delivered by a five-judge bench consisting of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and Justice Indu Malhotra. The lead opinion was authored by Justice R.F. Nariman.

Case Background

This case involves a batch of petitions challenging the legal requirements for providing reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). The core issue revolves around whether the government needs to demonstrate the backwardness of SCs and STs with quantifiable data before granting them reservation in promotions. This issue arose from differing interpretations of previous Supreme Court judgments, particularly the M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) case.

The petitioners argued that the requirement to show quantifiable data of backwardness for SC/ST promotions was incorrect. They contended that SCs and STs are presumed to be backward, and thus, this data requirement is unnecessary. The respondents, on the other hand, supported the requirement of quantifiable data, arguing that it ensures fairness and efficiency in public employment.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following Articles of the Constitution of India:

• Article 16: Guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment.
  • Article 16(4-A): Allows the State to make provisions for reservation in promotions for SCs and STs with consequential seniority if they are not adequately represented in services.

    “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): Allows the State to treat unfilled reserved vacancies of a year as a separate class to be filled in subsequent years without being subject to the 50% ceiling on reservations.

    “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.”

• Article 335: States that the claims of SCs and STs shall be taken into consideration in making appointments to services and posts, consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of administration. It also allows for relaxation in qualifying marks and lowering of standards for SCs and STs in promotions.

  “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: Provided that nothing in this article shall prevent in making of any provision in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes for relaxation in qualifying marks in any examination or lowering the standards of evaluation, for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of services or posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State.”

• Article 341: Defines the process for specifying Scheduled Castes.

  “(1) The President may with respect to any State or Union Territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be. (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.”

• Article 342: Defines the process for specifying Scheduled Tribes.

  “(1) The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be. (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.”

Arguments

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

Arguments for Reconsideration of Nagaraj (supra):

• The Attorney General argued that the requirement in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) for the State to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of SCs and STs is contrary to the nine-judge bench decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), which held that SCs and STs are presumed to be the most backward and do not need to prove their backwardness again.
• The creamy layer concept should not be applied to SCs and STs, as it was not applied in Indra Sawhney (1). The Presidential List of SCs and STs cannot be altered by anyone except Parliament under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution.
• The test for determining adequate representation should be based on the proportion of SCs and STs to the population in India at all stages of promotion, using the roster system mentioned in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995).
• Article 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) do not stem from Article 16(4) but from Articles 14 and 16(1). Claims of SCs and STs are based on Articles 14, 15, 16, 16(4-A), 16(4-B), and 335.
• Further sub-classification within SCs and STs is not permissible, as held in Indra Sawhney (1) and E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. (2005). The Nagaraj decision effectively amends the Presidential Order, violating Articles 341 and 342.
• The exercise of reading down a constitutional amendment in Nagaraj to make it valid was constitutionally impermissible.
• Nagaraj and Chinnaiah cannot stand together, making Nagaraj per incuriam, as it does not refer to Chinnaiah.

Arguments in Defense of Nagaraj (supra):

• The term “class” in Nagaraj refers to the class of posts, not SCs and STs. Backwardness in relation to posts requires quantifiable data.
• A Constitution Bench judgment that has stood the test of time, like Nagaraj, should not be revisited, as per Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay North (1965).
• Nagaraj upheld the constitutional amendments adding Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) by applying the 50% cut-off, creamy layer, and no indefinite extension of reservation, which are facets of the equality principle.
• The creamy layer principle applies to exclude unequals within the same class, ensuring that those genuinely deserving of reservation receive the benefits. It does not deal with group rights and is based on Articles 14 and 16(1), not Articles 341 and 342.
• The word “which” in Article 16(4-A) indicates that SCs and STs must continue to be backward. Continued social backwardness of SC/ST employees must be assessed, and reservation may not be necessary at higher levels if backwardness is not present.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the State needs to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for reservation in promotions?
2. Whether the creamy layer concept applies to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the context of reservation in promotions?

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

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217]: The Court relied on this case to state that SCs and STs are presumed to be backward and do not need to prove it again.
• M. Nagaraj v. Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 212]: The Court clarified that the requirement to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of SCs and STs was incorrect, but upheld the creamy layer principle.
• E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. [(2005) 1 SCC 394]: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it dealt with a different issue of sub-classification within SCs and not the constitutional amendments related to reservation in promotions.
• Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay North [(1965) 2 SCR 908]: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that earlier decisions should not be revisited frequently.
• State of Kerala & Anr. v. N.M. Thomas and Ors. [(1976) 2 SCC 310]: The Court used this case to explain the origin of the creamy layer concept.
• Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India [(2008) 6 SCC 1]: The Court referred to this case to clarify that the creamy layer principle is not merely a principle of identification but also a principle of equality.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a desire to balance the need for affirmative action with the principles of equality and efficiency. The Court sought to correct the error in Nagaraj regarding the collection of quantifiable data for backwardness of SCs and STs, while reaffirming the creamy layer concept. The Court also emphasized the importance of maintaining the efficiency of administration and ensuring that the benefits of reservation reach the truly disadvantaged.

Ranking of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that:

• The State does not need to collect quantifiable data showing the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for reservation in promotions. The presumption of backwardness of SCs and STs as established in Indra Sawhney (1) remains valid.
• The creamy layer concept applies to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the context of reservation in promotions. This is based on the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.

The Court clarified that the judgment in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) was incorrect in requiring quantifiable data on backwardness for SC/ST promotions. However, the Court upheld the creamy layer principle as it does not alter the Presidential List under Articles 341 and 342.

Impact of the Judgment

The judgment has the following impacts:

• Clarity on Data Requirement: It clarifies that the government does not need to collect quantifiable data showing the backwardness of SCs and STs for reservation in promotions. This removes a significant burden on the government and simplifies the implementation of reservation policies.
• Application of Creamy Layer: The application of the creamy layer concept to SCs and STs ensures that the benefits of reservation reach the truly disadvantaged within these communities. This promotes equality and prevents the concentration of benefits in a few hands.
• Upholding Constitutional Amendments: The Court upheld the constitutional amendments introducing Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B), which allow for reservation in promotions with consequential seniority for SCs and STs.
• Consistency with Indra Sawhney: The Court reaffirmed the principle laid down in Indra Sawhney (1) that SCs and STs are presumed to be backward and do not need to prove it again for the purpose of reservation in promotions.
• Impact on Government Policies: The government can now formulate its reservation policies for promotions without the need to collect extensive data on the backwardness of SCs and STs. This will facilitate the implementation of affirmative action programs.
• Impact on Rights of SC/ST Employees: The judgment ensures that SC/ST employees continue to receive the benefits of reservation in promotions, while also ensuring that the creamy layer is excluded. This balances the need for affirmative action with the principles of equality and efficiency.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Jarnail Singh vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018) is a significant milestone in the jurisprudence of reservation in India. It clarifies the extent to which the government must justify its policies of reservation in promotions for SCs and STs. By removing the requirement of quantifiable data for backwardness, the Court has simplified the implementation of reservation policies while also ensuring that the benefits of reservation reach the truly disadvantaged within these communities through the creamy layer principle.

This judgment strikes a balance between the need for affirmative action and the principles of equality and efficiency. It reaffirms the constitutional commitment to social justice and equality while also ensuring that the benefits of reservation are not misused. The judgment is likely to have a lasting impact on the way reservation policies are formulated and implemented in India.