Written by Monisha.C.J, 5th year BBA,LL.B(hons) student, Dr.MGR educational and research institute, During the internship with Le Droit.
KEYWORDS:
Reservation in promotions, Jarnail Singh case, Scheduled caste and scheduled tribes, constitutional equality, M.Nagaraj Judgement and Judicial Conflicts.
ABSTRACT:
Reservation in promotions has been one of the most contested issues in India, especially after the Landmark Jarnail Singh V. Lachhmi Narain Gupta case. The judicial interpretation of reservations in promotions has evolved through significant constitutional challenges, balancing the rights of the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled Tribes rights with the principle of Equal opportunities. This article examines the post-Jarnail Singh judicial conflicts, the interplay between the M.Nagaraj precedent and its modification, and the critical role of data, quantifiable representation, and backwardness in policymaking. By analysing Supreme Court rulings and recent high court judgements, the discussion highlights the tensions between social justice and meritocracy and evaluates the implications for constitutional equality.
INTRODUCTION:
The framework for reservations in promotions has long been disputed in Indian constitutional law. Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) were introduced by the 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th amendments, affirming Parliament’s intent to enable promotion reservations for SC/STs with consequential seniority. In M.Nagaraj V. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court upheld these amendments but imposed three strict conditions which are Backwardness, Inadequacy of representation, and Administrative efficiency, demonstrable through quantifiable data. Subsequently, the Jarnail Singh Judgement (2018) removed the need to prove backwardness for SC/STs but retained data requirement and introduced a Creamy Layer exclusion for these groups. This shift has instigated substantial judicial conflict, promoting further clarification on data collection, state discretion, and internal fairness.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND:
Reservation and promotions is rooted in the constitutional vision of substantive equality. Article 16(4) empowers the state to make special provisions for any backward class, not adequately represented in public services before. Articles 16(4A) AND 16(4B) specifically address SC/ST promotion reservation, ensuring that consequential seniority and unfilled vacancies can be carried forward.
The following provisions emerged from a series of constitutional amendments;
- 77th Amendment (1995)- This amendment introduced Article 16(4A) to allow reservation in promotions for SC/STs.
- 81st amendment (2000)- the amendment added Article 16(4B) for carrying forward, unfilled reserved vacancies.
- 82nd amendment (2000)- This amendment enables relaxation of qualifying marks for SC/STs in promotions.
- 85th Amendment (2001)- this amendment granted consequential seniority to SC/ST promotees.
M.NAGARAJ V. UNION OF INDIA (2006) – THE FOUNDATIONAL FRAME WORK.
In M.Nagaraj V. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212, the Supreme Court upheld the above amendments but placed three constitutional conditions on states before granting reservation in promotions:
- Backwardness- The state had to demonstrate that the SC/ST community continued to be backward.
- Inadequacy of Representation- Measurable data proving underrepresentation in public employment.
- Administrative efficiency- Ensuring promotions would not undermine Article 335’s mandate.
While the judgment preserved parliament’s intent, it significantly constrained state discretion.
JARNAIL SINGH V. LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA (2018) – A CONSTITUTIONAL SHIFT:
In Jarnail Singh (2018) 10 SCC 396, the court modified M.Nagaraj in two crucial ways, which are as follows;
- Removed the backwardness requirement for SC/STs, holding that their historical backwardness was already recognised in the Constitution.
- Introduced the creamy layer exclusion to prevent the benefits from reaching economically advanced members within the SC/Sts.
The court retained the need for quantifiable data on the inadequacy of representation and the safeguard of administrative efficiency.
POST- JARNAIL SINGH JUDICIAL CONFLICTS:
- On the Creamy Layer Principle:
Several state governments challenged the creamy layer exclusion, arguing that it dilutes the constitutional protection for SC/STs. However in the State of Kerala V. N.M.Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310 AIR 1976 SC 490 (follow-up interpretations), courts have generally upheld its application as a means to ensure fairness within reserved categories.
- On Data Collection Standards:
Post-Jarnail Singh, many disputes have arisen over how data on inadequacy should be collected. In B.K.Pavitra II V. Union of India (2019) 16 SCC 129, the Supreme Court clarified that the data must be cadre-specific rather than department-wide. This placed a heavy administrative burden on States and led to frequent invalidation of promotion policies.
DATA COLLECTION AND QUANTIFIABLE REPRESENTATION:
The quantifiable data requirement has emerged as the most challenging aspect Post-Jarnail Singh. The Supreme Court in B.K.Pavitra II V. Union of India (2019) 16 SCC 129 emphasised that states must:
- Collect cadre-wise representation data.
- Establish that the inadequacy is substantial, not marginal.
- Ensure that the date is recent and relevant to the current service structures.
Without compliance, reservation in promotions policies risk being struck down as unconstitutional.
THE CREAMY LAYER DEBATE IN PROMOTIONS:
While originally applied to OBC reservations Indra Sawhney V. Union of India, AIR1993SCC47, the creamy layer principle’s extension to SC/ST promotions remains controversial. Supporters argue it prevents monopolisation by a privileged minority within the group, ensuring benefits reach the most disadvantaged. Opponents argue that it undermines the constitutional recognition of SC/STs as historically disadvantaged, regardless of the economic progress.
ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY VS. SOCIAL JUSTICE:
Article 335 mandates that reservation policies must not compromise the efficiency of administration. Post-Jarnail Singh, courts have increasingly scrutinised whether promotional reservations affect service quality, especially in specialised technical roles. The challenge lies in balancing meritocracy with social justice, ensuring efficiency while upholding substantive equality.
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES:
Some countries, like South Africa, have similar affirmative action debates but focus more on representational equity than strict efficiency metrics. In contrast, India’s approach is heavily judicialised, with courts dictating specific data requirements that significantly influence State policy discretion.
CONCLUSION:
The Post-Jarnail Singh landscape reveals that reservation in promotions remains a delicate and balancing act between social justice and constitutional equality. The introduction of the creamy layer principle, The insistence on quantifiable data, and the demand for cadre-specific statistics have reshaped how states implement promotion policies. While these safeguards aim to ensure fairness and efficiency, they also risk delaying or diluting the intended benefits for the SC/ST communities.
Going forward, the resolution of the judicial conflicts will require a more collaborative approach between the judiciary and the legislature, ensuring that the reservation in promotions serves it purpose without undermining meritocracy, administrative efficiency, and equality of opportunity. The legacy of the Jarnail Singh ensures that the debate on the reservation in promotions will remain at the centre of India’s constitutional disclosure.
REFERENCES:
