Constitutional Law

Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta

(2018) 10 SCC 396

Citation: (2018) 10 SCC 396
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 26 September 2018
Bench: Dipak Misra C.J.; Kurian Joseph; R.F. Nariman; S.K. Kaul; Indu Malhotra

Facts

In M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, the Supreme Court had upheld constitutional amendments enabling reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Nagaraj required the State to collect quantifiable data concerning:
backwardness of the class;
inadequacy of representation; and
administrative efficiency.
Several High Courts later invalidated promotional-reservation policies because States had not collected all three forms of data.
A group of cases reached the Supreme Court questioning whether Nagaraj required reconsideration by a larger Bench.
It was argued that requiring proof of the backwardness of SCs and STs contradicted:
their constitutional recognition under Articles 341 and 342; and
the reasoning in Indra Sawhney.
Questions also arose concerning application of the creamy-layer principle to reservation in promotion for SCs and STs.
A five-judge Constitution Bench reconsidered these portions of Nagaraj.

Whether M. Nagaraj required reference to a seven-judge Bench.
Whether States must collect quantifiable data proving the backwardness of SCs and STs.
Whether data concerning inadequate representation remained necessary.
Whether the creamy-layer principle applies to SCs and STs in promotional reservation.

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are constitutionally recognised through Presidential Lists.
Their backwardness cannot be repeatedly reopened by every State before granting promotional reservation.
The State need not collect fresh quantifiable data to prove that SCs and STs are backward.
It must nevertheless collect relevant data showing inadequacy of representation in the concerned public services.
Administrative efficiency under Article 335 must also be considered.
The creamy-layer principle is an aspect of equality intended to prevent advanced members from capturing benefits meant for disadvantaged members.
Excluding the creamy layer does not alter the Presidential Lists or remove a person’s SC or ST status.

The Court held that Nagaraj was correct in treating Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) as enabling provisions.
States were not compelled to provide reservation in promotion.
Where they chose to do so, the decision had to be justified by relevant constitutional material.
However, the requirement to prove the backwardness of SCs and STs was inconsistent with their constitutional identification.
Once a community was included in a Presidential List, a State could not demand repeated proof that the entire class remained backward.
That portion of Nagaraj was therefore modified.
The requirement concerning inadequate representation was retained.
Representation could vary between:
departments;
services;
cadres; and
levels of employment.
The State had to examine the relevant administrative unit rather than rely upon general assumptions.
The Court also applied the creamy-layer principle.
Its purpose was not to declare advanced SC or ST persons outside their caste or tribe.
It was to ensure that the benefits of promotional reservation were not continuously captured by those who had already obtained significant social advancement.
The Court rejected the argument that applying creamy-layer exclusion amounted to Parliament or the judiciary altering the Presidential Lists.
The list determines community membership; the creamy-layer rule concerns distribution of reservation benefits.
Because the required corrections could be made without reconsidering the whole of Nagaraj, no larger Bench was necessary.

The Court unanimously declined to refer M. Nagaraj to a larger Bench.
States need not collect quantifiable data proving the backwardness of SCs and STs.
They must still establish inadequate representation and consider administrative efficiency.
The creamy-layer principle was held applicable when distributing promotional-reservation benefits.