| Citation | (2006) 8 SCC 212 |
| Date Of Judgement | 19 October 2006 |
| Court | Supreme Court Of India |
| Case Type | Writ Petition |
| 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 |
| Appellant | M. Nagaraj & Others |
| Respondent | Union of India & Others |
| Referred | The Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14, 16(4A), 16(4B), 335 |
FACTS OF THE CASE-
The information presented in the case, which’s the primary complaint, indicates that the Petitioners have already utilized Article 32 of the Constitution to request a writ of certiorari in order to invalidate the Constitution (Eighty Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001. This amendment retrospectively introduces Article 16(4A) into the Indian Constitution, which provides reservation, in promotions based on seniority. The Petitioners argue that this amendment is inconsistent with the constitution and violates its structure by overturning decisions of this Court in cases such as 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. According to the appellants the Legislature has taken on both adjudicative functions by using its amending power to overturn pronouncements made by this Court. They contend that this infringes upon the structure of the Constitution and renders the amendment unconstitutional and likely to be invalidated. The amendment also seeks to alter the right to equality, which forms a part of the essential structure of our Constitution as, per their argument. According to the individuals, behind the petition when it comes to Article 16(1) equality implies ” advancement” than “consequential seniority.” The petitioners argue that in the case of Indra Sawhney as determined by this Court it was declared that reservation for classes under Article 16(4) is permissible during initial recruitment and not during promotions. The petitioners allege that Parliament violated this ruling by passing the Constitution (Seventy Seventh Amendment) Act of 1995. This amendment reintroduced reservation, in promotions through the inclusion of Article 16(4A). According to the petitioners granting accelerated seniority to roster point promotions will have consequences. By the time a person reaches the age of 45 someone who has been promoted based on their qualifications and experience would have reached the level in the graduate stream. They would reach the level at age 49. Remain there for nine years. However someone who is promoted based on merit would only reach the level out of six by the age of 56. By the time they become eligible for the level they may have already retired from their job. The petitioners argue that the implementation of the 85th Amendment, which includes reservation in promotions along with seniority benefits could lead to treatment in terms of representation of officers from reserved categories, in higher positions.
ISSUES-
- The issue arises for the relevance, understanding, and application of-
the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995,
the Constitution (Eighty-First Amendment) Act, 2000,
the Constitution (Eighty-Second Amendment) Act, 2000, and
the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001
- Is it true that the actions performed in response to the Supreme Court’s judgment in issues of promotions and its implementation with retrospective effect?
- 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?
- Is equity and equality an element of the constitution’s fundamental characteristics or basic structure or otherwise?
ARGUMENTS-
The appellants argue that equality is a part of the structure of the Constitution of India as stated in Article 14. They emphasize that it is impossible to consider the Constitution without fairness being one of its components.Furthermore the appellants contend that Article 16 plays a role, in ensuring equality and should be interpreted in conjunction with Article 14 as well as several other articles in Part IV. According to the appellants the Constitution places importance on public sector employment. Upholding equality through Article 16s specific assurance for employment equity. They argue that if there is an imbalance in terms of efficiency when it comes to ensuring equality with support towards group expectations at the expense of rights it could lead to reverse discrimination. Regarding the power to amend and alter they assert that Parliament cannot expand its amendment jurisdiction with the intention of repealing the Constitution. If amendments undermine or weaken the structure such alterations would fail. There exists a distinction between limitations on quotas and restrictions on threshold reservations. It is suggested that cases like Indra Sawhney should define opportunities in employment more precisely to establish a balance, between Articles 16(1) and 16(4).It is important to consider the relationship between Articles 14 and 16 in relation to Article 335. The revisions being contested go against the principles of efficiency, merit and maintaining morale, in service. They also undermine the foundation of governance. It is strongly recommended that these revisions have the potential to create division, conflict and instability.
The respondents have argued that the power to amend the Constitution is a power and not a power granted by someone. This means that there are no implied limitations on the authority of the Legislature to amend the Constitution. It does not violate, interfere with or weaken its structure. It is also contended that any revisions made to uphold the guiding principles should not violate the core structure of the Constitution. They argue that the equality described in Articles 14 and 16 should not be confused with the equality that forms a part of our Constitution. Furthermore they claim that the approach of balancing reserved privileges in interpreting Article 16 is unrelated to features of our Constitution such as constitutional supremacy, democracy, secularism, separation of powers, etc.
They argue that jurisprudence related to services is not an element of our Constitution and that entitlement for promotion within service concerns is not a fundamental characteristic. Additionally it is argued that while these challenged amendments maintained reservations at entry level positions against Indra Sawhney ruling; they primarily focused on Backward Classes than SCs/STs. As a result there was no balance between rights, for these three categories. Consequently there is an argument that reservation is restricted according to Article 16(4A). Furthermore it was asserted that while keeping in mind the authority of Article 335 reservations can be made for positions, through recruitment and also for promotions. The court has taken into consideration the interests of the category by limiting reservation to a maximum of 50% when filling vacancies. Lastly it was contended that Article 16(4B) pertains to reservations under Article 16(4) that are considered acceptable, within limits. If the reservation exceeds a level it may be invalidated. Therefore the authority granted by Article 16(4B) cannot be rendered null and void.
JUDGEMENT-
The Court has made a ruling stating that the legal amendments challenged in the constitution Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) have been added to Article 16(4). It is important to note that these amendments do not alter the structure of Article 16(4). They uphold the criteria of backwardness and insufficient participation allowing states to implement reservation policies while considering the efficiency of government administration, as per Article 335. These amendments only apply to SCs and STs. Do not override any obligations such as the 50 percent ceiling, the concept of creamy layer, sub classification of OBCs SCs/STs as established in the Indra Sawhney case or the concept of a post based roster with substitution as outlined in R.K. Sabharwals judgment.It is emphasized that meeting requirements such as the 50 percent threshold considering creamy layer status and providing convincing reasons based on factors like backwardness lack of representation and administrative efficiency are essential for ensuring equal opportunities under Article 16. Prior to implementing reservation provisions it is crucial for each state to demonstrate compelling factors supporting reservation such, as backwardness, inadequate representation and overall administrative effectiveness. The honorable Bench also mentioned that the disputed provision is merely a provision that allows for the possibility of reservations, for SC/ST in promotions. It is not mandatory for the government to implement them. However if the government chooses to exercise its discretion and establish reservations it must provide evidence of the backwardness of these communities and their lack of representation in public employment. This evidence should be in addition to complying with Article 335.The Bench emphasized that even if the State has reasons as mentioned above it must ensure that its reservation law does not lead to indefinite reservations disregarding those who belong to the creamy layer. The reservation should not be extended indefinitely.It was stated that the State needs to present evidence showcasing the underdevelopment faced by communities benefiting from reservations inadequate representation in positions for reserved promotions and how reservation in promotions will enhance efficiency. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the disputed amendments. As per the courts perspective social justice revolves around allocating advantages and responsibilities. The conflict between rights, needs and means forms the basis for distribution. These three criteria can be classified as either ” equality” or “proportional equality ” with equality implying equal treatment under law, for all individuals.
This Article Is Written By Saurabh Sharma, Student Of Vivekananda Institute Of Professional Studies, Intern Under Legal Vidhiya
