AUTHOR- Varun Vikas Srivastav, Amity University, Noida.







Date of the Judgment: 26th September 2018

Bench: Former Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justice RF Nariman, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice SK Kaul

1. Background of the Case

Reservation has always been a controversial problem in the Indian republic. Following the same, Dr. B R Ambedkar granted up the demand of the Dalit society for separate constituent institutes. It was acknowledged that the castes represented by the British as “discouraged classes” would be granted reservation in employment with joint voters for a tremendous number of seats than envisioned by the Mac Donald award. There was thus, a national agreement that the “depressed classes” should be designed in arrangements in public services as well as in local bodies, in other words, reservation in public co-operation and local bodies. They said ‘depressed classes’ evolved to be recognized as “Scheduled Castes” and “Scheduled Tribes”.

The numerous States simultaneously with the Centre questioned the Court's 2006 Nagaraj verdict[1]. The petitioners' directed that Nagaraj had presented it meanly complex to confer reservations in progression. Indistinct, they had explained that the Court ought to examine the three-controlling provision.

Before allowing reservations in the improvement to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in public employment, the State needs to explain the following:

  1. Prevailing backwardness of the SC/ST

  2. Incompetent representation of the SC/ST in the appropriate sector

  3. The reservations will support administrative competence

The case is at the core of the matter of reservation in promotions. The prompt discussions will deliver assistance to the government while Parliament reconvenes on March 2.

The Centre has remained under bombardment from the Opposition which has required clarity on the issue of reservation in advancements for Social justice and empowerment secretary R Subrahmanyam informed ET, “Numerous concerns would be acknowledged by the SC during the Jarnail Singh case”. The matter will have immediate importance on the contemporary verdict in Uttarakhand government matter, where the court directed that states were not compelled to give reservation to SCs/STs in promotions. We had inquired prompt hearings from the Supreme Court as concerns related to the new verdict had to be directed and the application has been imparted.” SCs and STs.

2. Introduction

As citizens, we demand two results from any judgment on public policy by a constitution bench of the Supreme Court.

· First, it contains whether the underlying policies are compatible with the Constitution of India.

· Second, the decision concludes the on-going governance insensibility.

Unluckily, the court has achieved neither purpose in its current verdict in Jarnail Singh v. LachhmiNarain Gupta[2], wherein it held that the administration need not obtain quantifiable data to describe backwardness of public employees referring to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (SC/STs) to implement reservations for them in promotions[3].

3. Facts of the case

1. A vacation bench of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Ashok Bhushan was apprehending an SLP favoured by the Centre opposite the August-2017 verdict of the Delhi High Court repealing the DoPT Office Memorandum (OM) dated August 13, 1997, which produced for the restoration of reservation in promotions considerably.

2. The high court had declared the judgment in the knowledge of the apex court constitution bench judgment in M Nagaraj (2006).

3. On May 17, a court of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar, hearing an SLP against the 2011 decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court suppressing a comparable OM in pursuance of M Nagaraj, had delivered “that the pendency of this Special Leave Petition shall not attain in the way of Union of India considering measures for improvement from ‘reserved to reserved’ and ‘unreserved to unreserved’ and also in the subject of development on merits.”

4. The Constitution board of the SC, on 26 September 2018 announced a decision authored by Justice Rohinton Nariman, that reservation in promotions seems not to expect the state to assemble quantifiable data on the backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, yet proffers the “creamy layer” in each group unsuitable for the interests.

5. Issues Raised

a. Whether M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (Nagaraj) wanted reconsideration?

b. Nagaraj verdict had continued that before the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe applicants can be served, the states had to determine by “quantifiable data” that people were true “backward”

c. Whether the ‘creamy layer’ amongst SC/STs should be prohibited from receiving promotions by reservations?

6. Chain of events

  1. The existing group of cases results out of two indicating sequences – the first by a two-Judge Bench related to in a second indicating order, dated 15.11.2017, which is by a three-Judge Court, which has included the accuracy of the judgment in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, (“Nagaraj”), to a Constitution Bench[4].

  2. The discussion in these themes rotates around the construction of the subsequent Articles of the Constitution of India: ―16. Equality of opportunity in concerns of public employment. ―335. Rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts. ―341. Scheduled Castes―342. Scheduled Tribes

  3. We have gathered wide-ranging discussions on either party for several days, putting numerous points. However, eventually, we have restrained contentions to two circumstances that expect serious attention.

  4. However, after this case reservation of employment under article 16(4) was restricted only to the primary selections and did not stretch to the interest of promotion.

  5. The logic for the corresponding was presented on the assumption that reservation survives to generate a level playing track to assist with the uneven starting positions whereby eliminating the support for promotion allowances.

  6. The forum affirmed that once the bodies of the scheduled case and schedule tribe were designated. They could be selected for additional promotions based on their reliance.

  7. The court applied the condition of Article 335 to support this[5].

7. Rules

Articles of the Constitution of India:

· 16. Equality of opportunity in concerns of public employment.

· 16(4A) & 16 (4B)

· 335. Rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts.

· 341. Scheduled Castes

· 342. Scheduled Tribes

77th, 81st and 85th constitutional amendments in 1995, 2000 and 2001 respectively

8. Analysis

The decision of the Supreme Court in this which affirmed the purpose of the creamy layer to promotions for SC/ST administration representatives as held in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India[6] conferred the narrow mentality of the type of caste discrimination in organizations.

While on one hand, the decision operated in Articles 16(4A)[7] and 16(4B)[8] to be accurate, which enables for reservations in promotions, on the opposite side, it completely compensated the aforementioned advantage by implementing the creamy layer constraint. If the contemporary creamy layer ceiling of Rs 8 lakh per annum were to be implemented, still ‘Group D’ SC/ST employees would be excluded from reservations.

9. Reservations in promotions

Reservation, especially in promotions, has perpetually been questionable. Article 16, which grants for “Equality of opportunity in subjects of the public profession” basically did not receive any specific prerequisite concerning promotion. Nevertheless, Indra Sawhney[9], which began in the track of the Mandal Commission in 1992, endured reservation in promotion as illegal. To counter this decision and others like Virpal Singh [10]and Ajit Singh[11], the convention declared the 77th, 81st and 85th constitutional amendments in 1995, 2000 and 2001 respectively. These Amendments appended the prevailing Article 16(4A) and Article 16(4B) that explicitly conceded reservations in promotions for SCs and STs. The lawful legality of these procurements was examined in Nagaraj.

10. What is Creamy Layer?

The “creamy layer” is the commonly scanty segment of people that holds the head of a marginalized community’s socio-economic authority. It would involve the children of Supreme Court judges, senior administrators, and army deputies over the rank of colonel about that area. The creamy layer test stipulates that a candidate must be underneath a particular income canopy to avail of reservation in-state jobs and enlightening institutions.

11. Why did it Begin?

Reservation for Dalits, Adivasis, and the Other Backwards Classes did not define any salary guidelines. Neither was any before-mentioned amendments presented by central or state legislation. The remaining support of reservation was caste.

It was the Supreme Court that produced in the notion of the “creamy layer” in 1993 by its decision in the Indira Sawhney case. The judiciary announced setting in the structure of the “creamy layer” conformed with the primary construction of the Constitution as it mapped to the principle of equality[12]. “Elimination of such socially liberal divisions will obtain the ‘class’ a fairly backward class.

The system, notwithstanding, only implemented to the Other Backward Classes, not Dalits and Adivasis, who are recognized as the country’s greatest backward societies.

12. Arguments Advanced

Attorney General KK Venugopal contended that the Constitution circumscribed the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes to be “backward”, and no additional analyses could be commanded to support their “backwardness”. He also contested that the notion of the “creamy layer” implemented to the Other Backward Classes, not to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. The Nagaraj judgment had combined these passengers unlawfully, Venugopal debated, so the subject obliged to be connected to a larger bench.

The Supreme Court admitted his first point but not the following, denying to connect the Nagaraj judgment to a more extensive board of seven judges.

13. The Judgment

  1. The court supported the constitutional reforms.

  2. Not obligatory for the State to obtain reservations for SC/ST in the subject of promotions.

  3. If the state desired to implement reservation in promotion for SCs & STs, it must initially assemble quantifiable data determining the backwardness of the society and the inability of the description of that position in public employment.

  4. The state will also possess to consider into the record the possible repercussions on overall administrative effectiveness.

  5. But believed that both ‘creamy layer’ and the 50 percent ‘ceiling limit’ would connect to the caste-based reservation in promotions and that the nation should not stretch the reservation generally.

The court set down the obligation to accumulate quantifiable data that was specified by its 2006 judgment in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India neglected the argumentation of a nine-judge court in Indra Sawhney (1992) that any dispute on the creamy layer “has no significance” in the connection of SC/STs.

The court has become more than a decade to rectify an irregularity in the Nagaraj case which began in a creamy layer filter for improvements for SC/ST workers. This occurred in thousands of workers being revoked their due promotions.

Firstly, the decision believed that the Supreme Court's 2006 Nagaraj decision seems not to require reconsideration by a 7-judge court.

On moreover backwardness, the decision included that the additional backwardness position is hostile to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney[13]. Justice Nariman believed that Indra Sawhney does not concede for the acquisition of quantifiable records as a pre-requisite for imparting reservations in promotions.

Despite this, while the decision altered the additional backwardness basis, it also figured that the source of creamy layer suspension pertains to SC/STs. Beforehand creamy layer suspension only implemented to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in concerns of reservation.

The Court believed that creamy layer exclusion is the origin of balance. It possessed that declining to implement the elimination of the creamy layer belief would infringe the right to balance in two forms.

· Firstly, it thought that taking so treats peers adversely, particularly the general classes and the foremost amongst Backward Classes (SC/ST).

· Secondary, it held that ingesting so treat unequal’s the equal, particularly backward classes and the foremost amongst backward classes. Thus, the Court believed that the suspension of the creamy layer system is necessary to safeguard the right to justice.

Justice Nariman explained that in implementing the creamy layer sys