M. NAGARAJ & OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

M. NAGARAJ & OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

CITATION: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 61 OF 2002

BENCH: HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE Y. K. SABHARWAL, HON’BLE JUSTICE K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE JUSTICE S. H. KAPADIA, HON’BLE JUSTICE C. K. THAKKER & HON’BLE JUSTICE P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19 OCTOBER 2006

APPELANT: M. NAGARAJ & OTHERS

Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

LAWS CONCERNED: THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 – ARTICLE 14, 16(4A), 16(4B), 335

Case Details: 

In this case, the idea of reservation in promotion in the government departments was challenged on the basis of the policies on which it was based claiming such policies to be discriminatory and illegal in nature. Wherein, the Constitutional Bench upheld four constitutional amendments proposed by Legislature to invalidate the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision in Indra Sawhney Case. The case dealt with the validity of the Article 16 (4A) and 16 (4B) as well as gave a three-prong test for backward classes so as to grant reservation in promotion i.e.-

1. The state must demonstrate the class’s backwardness. 
2. It must demonstrate that the class is underrepresented in the role for which promotion reserves are being given.
3. It must demonstrate that the limitations are for administrative purposes. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The Petitioners had already invoked Article 32 of the Constitution for just a certiorari writ to nullify the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001, which retrospectively inserts Article 16(4A) of the Indian Constitution, offering reservation in promotion to significant seniority, as just being inconsistent with the constitution and violating the basic structure. The challenged modification, as per the petitioners, overturns this Court’s decisions in the cases of Union of India and others v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, Ajit Singh Januja and others v. State of Punjab, and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. 
2. The petitioners contend that using the modification power conferred by the violated amendment, the same legislator has violated the fundamental tenets of the constitution by acting as both a legislative body and a judge, overturning judgments rendered by this court. Therefore, the aforementioned change is unconstitutional and will probably be undone.
3. The right to equality, which is a key tenet of the Constitution, is also allegedly one of the amendment’s other goals, according to petitioners. According to the petitioners, “equality” in the sense of Article 16(1) refers to “rapid promotion” rather than “consequential seniority.”
4. The petitioners argue that under Article 16(4), reserving for members of the impoverished classes is only authorized during initial recruitment and not during promotion, contrary to what this Court decided in the instance of Indra Sawhney.
5. The 1995 constitution, according to petitioners, was passed in violation of the court’s injunction. Article 16 of the aforementioned amendments, restored the carriage exception (4A).
6. The petitioners contend that it would be terrible to grant accelerated seniority to promotions achieved with roster points. By the time he is 45 years old, a graduate stream roster-point promotion will have advanced him to the fourth level. He would achieve his goal at the age of 49 and remain there for nine years. While the general merit promotion would complete the third level of six at the age of 56 and be out of employment by the time, he was qualified for the fourth level, the general merit promotion would not.
7. The petitioners claim that because the 85th Amendment is in question and allows for seniority-based reservations in promotions, officers from reserved categories will face unfair treatment in higher-level positions.

Issue Aroused-

1. Is equity and equality an element of the constitution’s fundamental characteristics or basic structure or otherwise?
2. Does it hold true that the decisions made in reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling on promotions were implemented retroactively?
3. Whether authority of Legislature has been expanded to the point where any including all of the constitutional restrictions have been eliminated as a result of the challenged changes to the constitution?

Court observed:

1. At the outset, the SC extensively analyzed that the contested constitutional amendments incorporated Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) while removing Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) from Article 16(4). They make no changes to the format of Article 16(4) in any way. In line with Article 335, they uphold the guiding principles or essential aspects of backwardness and inadequacy of participation that allow governments to offer reservations while taking into account the overall efficacy of governmental administration. The disputed amendments only apply to SCs and STs. The 50 percent limit, the concept of the “creamy layer,” the subclassification of OBCs and SCs/STs as decided in the Indra Sawhney case, and the idea of a post-based roster with an implicit notion of the substitute as decided in the R.K. Sabharwal case are all still legal requirements under the constitution, demonstrating that the Article 16 system of equal opportunity will not function without the 50% threshold, the creamy layer hypothesis, and the arguments of backwardness, inadequate representation, and overall administrative effectiveness.
2. Bench came to the judgment that before enacting a provision for reservation, the concerned State must demonstrate the existence of compelling factors, such as backwardness, lack of participation, and overall administrative efficacy, in each case. The challenging part is only an enabling provision, according to the Hon’ble Bench, and the government is not required to apply reservations for SC/ST in promotions. But if the State decides to use its discretion and establish such a provision, it must also abide by Article 335 and compile quantitative proof of the class’s deprivation and under-representation in the workforce. The Bench determined that even though the State has a strong legal basis for its reservation regulations, as described above, it must be careful to prevent excess, remove the creamy layer, or extend the reservation indefinitely.
3. The state must demonstrate the underdevelopment of the group receiving benefits from the reservation, the lack of adequate representation in the position for which the reservation in promotions is to be granted, and how the reservation in promotions will improve administrative effectiveness, according to a report. The Court maintained the contested constitutional amendment’s legality. The acknowledged court claims that social justice is concerned with how rights and obligations are distributed. Where rights, needs, and means converge is where distribution should take place. These three needs could be classed as either “proportional equality” or “formal equality,” where formal equality means that everyone is treated equally under the law.

Held By Court: 

Hence, the Supreme Court upheld that the constitutional validity of the 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Amendments. The Supreme Court held that if the state wished to exercise their discretion and make provision for reservation in promotions for SCs/STs the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment. Even if the State has compelling reasons it has to see that its reservation provision does not breach the ceiling limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.

CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court issued its decision in the current case, upholding Parliament’s action to broaden reservation for SCs and STs to also include promotional offers with three riders. The ruling in this case, in my opinion, will give significant impact in the development of a weaker section of society. The laws which have been made to provide reservation in promotions will definitely encourage SC’s or ST’s to participate in work more efficiently but in short-term process.

This is written by Divyanshi Aggarwal of 10^th sem studying at Institute of Management Education (IME), Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut