| NAME OF THE CASE | M. Nagaraj &Ors Vs Union of India & Ors |
| CITATION | Writ Petition (civil) 61 of 2002 |
| DATE OF THE CASE | 19 October 2006 |
| APPELANT | M. Nagaraj & Ors |
| RESPONDANT | Union of India & Ors |
| BENCH/JUDGE | 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 |
| IMPORTANT SECTIONS/ ARTICLES | The Constitution of Indian, 1950 – Article 14, 16(4A), 16(4B), 335 |
BACKGROUND
M. Nagaraja vs UOI is a landmark case decided by the Supreme Court of India in 2006.In this case, the SC ipheld the constitutional validity of the 77th and 85th constitutional amendments that provided for reservations in promotions for SC/ST communities in public employment.
However, the court also imposed certain conditions that the government must fulfil brfore granting such reservations. The three conditions set by the court were:
- The state must demonstrate the backwardness of the SC/ST communities.
- The state must demonstrate the inadequacy of their representation in public employment.
- The state must demonstrate that the reservation in promotions is not effecting thre overall efficiency of public administration.
The Court held that these conditions were necessary to ensure that the reservation policy did not violate the basic structure of the Constitution and was in line with the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution.
The Court also clarified that these conditions were not exhaustive and the government could impose additional conditions as necessary to make the reservations policy more effective.
Overall, the M.Nagaraja case is an important decision that has significant implications for the reservation policy in India. It reaffirms the importance of the reservation policy in promoting social justice and ensuring equal opportunities for all citizens, while also imposing reasonable restrictions to ensure that the policy is not misused or abused.
INTRODUCTION
Reservation is a sensitive and complex topic in Indian democracy. While some argue that certain age groups have suffered for a long time and deserve compensation, others argue that India is a liberal and secular society where everyone should be treated equally. The Indian Constitution provides for reservation in all sectors of life, including education, government jobs, and the judiciary, to ensure that disadvantaged groups have equal opportunities.
However, there have been challenges to reservation policies. The case of M.Nagaraja vs UOI, the issue of reservation in promotion in government agencies was questioned, with some claiming that such policies were discriminatory and illegal. The Supreme Court of India examined the regulations on which the policy was based and ultimately upheld the policy, stating that it was a legitimate means to achieve equality and social justice.
While the verdict was criticized by some, it reflects the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of equity and social justice enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The issue of reservation remains contentious, and it is important for all sides to engage in a constructive dialogue to find solutions that balance the need for social justice with the principles of equality and fairness.
FACTS
The current plea concerns a challenge to the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001, which retrospectively inserts Article 16(4A) into the Indian Constitution, providing for reservation in promotion to significant seniority. The petitioners argue that this amendment is inconsistent with the constitution and violates its basic structure, as it overturns previous judicial decisions and fundamentally alters the right to equality, which is part of the constitution’s essential structure.
The petitioners argue that under Article 16(1), equality means rapid promotion, not consequential seniority. They also point to the ruling in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, which declared that reservation to the backward classes is admissible only during initial recruitment and not during promotion. However, the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act of 1995 reintroduced reservation in promotion by adding Article 16(4A), which the petitioners claim violates the ruling in Indra Sawhney.
The petitioners further argue that granting accelerated seniority to roster-point promotes will have devastating repercussions, as they will reach higher positions faster than general merit promotes. This, according to the petitioners, would result in discriminatory treatment in the ratio of reserved category officers in higher-tier positions.
Overall, the petitioners claim that the challenged amendment is unconstitutional and likely to be overturned as it violates the constitution’s basic structure and fundamentally alters the right to equality
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the 77th amendment and Article 16(4A) hold constitutional validity or not?
- Whether the 81st amendment and Article 16(4B) hold constitutional validity or not?
- Whether the 82nd and 85th amendment hold constitutional validity or not?
ARGUMENTS
PLAINTIFF:-
According to the appellants’ arguments, equality is a part of the basic structure according to article 14 of Constitution of India and it is impossible to consider the Constitution without fairness as one of its central components. The Constitution places great value on public sector employment and the law of equality, as Article 16 provides a specific assurance safeguarding employment equity. It is argued that if the fundamental balancing of equality in terms of efficiency is interrupted, and the individual right is infringed upon with excess support for group expectations, this would lead to reversed discrimination.
Upon this issue of amending and altering power, it is argued that Parliament cannot increase its amendment jurisdiction in order to obtain the ability to repeal the Constitution, and that if the breadth of the alteration encourages removal of the basic structure, such amendment would fail.
There is indeed a contrast between quota limitations and maximum or thresh hold permitted reservation restrictions.
It is proposed that the equality of opportunity in public employment be defined in several cases, particularly Indra Sawhney, in order to set up and balance Articles 16(1) and 16(4).
It is urged that Articles 14 and 16 must be read in relation to Article 335 as issued; that the contested revisions violate the dual ideals of efficiency, merit, and public service morale, as well as the cornerstone of good governance. It is strongly advised that the contested revisions possibly allow to divisiveness, discord, and dissolution
DEFANDANT:-
On the part of the respondents, the assertion was made that the authority of amendment is a ‘constituent’ power rather than a ‘constituted power,’ which means there are no implied restrictions on the Legislature’s authority when seeking to amend the Constitution, but it does not violate, interfere with, or weaken the basic structure.
It is also argued that revisions to give effect to the guiding principles must not violate the Constitution’s core structure. It is argued that the equality described in Articles 14 and 16 should not be confused with the equality that is a fundamental component of the Constitution.
It is argued that this approach of balancing public and reserve privileges in the interpretation of Article 16 has no connection to the Constitution’s basic features, which include fundamental principles such as constitutional supremacy, democracy, secularism, separation of powers, etc.
It has been argued that jurisprudence dealing to public services is not a fundamental component of the Constitution, and that the right to consideration for advancement in service concerns is not a fundamental characteristic.
It is argued that the challenged modifications kept reservations at the recruiting level in contravention of the Indra Sawhney ruling, but the focus was on Backward Classes rather than SCs/STs, and so there was no balance of rights of three categories. As a result, it is argued that reservation is restricted under Article 16(4A).
It was further argued that if it is legal to make reservations at higher levels through direct recruitment and can also be done for promotion while keeping in mind the authority of Article 335, as Court has taken care of the general category’s interests by limiting vacancy filling to a maximum of 50% for reservation.
Finally, it was contended that Article 16(4B) relates to reservations under Article 16(4) that are deemed to be within acceptable limitations, and that if the reserve is excessive, it may be nullified. As a result, the enabling authority granted by Article 16(4B) cannot be null and void.
JUDGEMENT
The constitutional validity of all the amendments and Articles were affirmed. The Doctrine of Equality played an important key in the Basic structure of the Constitution, but the rule that granted seniority wasn’t. Therefore the Doctrine of Basic Structure wasn’t applied.
In this case, the court considered a number of issues including purview of judicial review to doctrine of basic structure and authority of Parliament to assert its power to amend as per Article 368. In the context of judicial review, it was adjudged that it is the key component of basic structure of constitution, and it is the obligation of the court to use its powers whenever it is confronted with questions or situations violating basic structure.
Furthermore, it was decided by the court that the basic structure is an integral part of our constitution and there can be no violation at any expense. However, the notion of reservation in promotions cannot be linked with the notion of equality, thus, the same method and structure of testing cannot be applied.
It was further declared by the court that the state has to comply with 3 strict requirements to grant reservation in promotion, these are:
- Collect quantifiable data for the purpose of demonstrating backwardness of a particular backward class.
- Show beyond doubt that the SC/ST is being inadequately represented in public services.
- Comply with overall levels of efficiency of administration.
The court declared that it is not required to make a reservation for SCs and Sts in promotion, but if it does, it must satisfy the 3 strand test set up in the case.
BY- SHRAVANI GHOSH, KINGSTONEDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE, LLB 4TH SEMESTER
0 Comments