CASE ANALYSIS OF MUKESH KUMAR AND ANR V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. (2020)
INTRODUCTION –
Mukesh Kumar and Anr v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. is a landmark case in Indian legal history that dealt with the constitutional validity of reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public services. In 2012, the Uttarakhand government passed a law providing for reservation in promotions for SC/ST employees in public services. However, the law was challenged in the Uttarakhand High Court, which held it to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the principle of equality and that the state had not collected sufficient data to show backwardness of the SC/ST community. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, which in 2018 referred it to a larger bench to decide on the constitutional validity of reservation in promotion. The larger bench of the Supreme Court finally delivered its verdict in 2020, upholding the constitutional validity of the law and affirming that the state can make reservations in promotion for SC/ST employees without having to collect quantifiable data to show backwardness. The court also held that reservations in promotions can be made only in cases where the community is not adequately represented in the public service.
BACKGROUND –
The Mukesh Kumar and Anr v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors case was filed primarily due to the policy of affirmative action in India, which aims to uplift historically marginalized and disadvantaged communities of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Uttarakhand government had passed a law in 2012 providing for reservation in promotions for SC/ST employees in public services, which was challenged in the Uttarakhand High Court by a group of petitioners led by Mukesh Kumar and Anr. The petitioners argued that the law violated the principle of equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution and that the state had not collected sufficient data to demonstrate the backwardness of the SC/ST community. This case became significant as it involved the constitutional validity of reservation in promotion for SC/ST employees in public services and raised questions about the policy of affirmative action and the rights of historically marginalized communities in India. The case ultimately went to a larger bench of the Supreme Court, which delivered a verdict in 2020 that has far-reaching implications for affirmative action and the rights of marginalized communities in India.
PRE – CASES –
Before the Mukesh Kumar and Anr v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors case, India had a long history of passing laws and policies to promote affirmative action for historically marginalized communities such as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. One of the earliest laws passed in this regard was the Government of India Act, 1935, which provided for separate electorates for the Scheduled Castes. This was followed by the Constitution of India in 1950, which provided for reservations in education and employment for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Over the years, the Indian government has passed several laws to ensure affirmative action for these communities, including the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1990, and the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001, which allowed for reservations in promotions for SC/ST employees in public services. However, these laws and policies have faced opposition and legal challenges from various groups, with some arguing that they violate the principle of equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The Mukesh Kumar and Anr v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors case was one such legal challenge, which ultimately upheld the constitutional validity of reservation in promotions for SC/ST employees in public services.
LEGAL QUESTIONS RAISED IN THE CASE –
The Mukesh Kumar and Anr v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors case raised several important legal questions related to the policy of affirmative action in India and the constitutional validity of reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes employees in public services. One of the key legal questions in this case was whether the law providing for reservation in promotions for SC/ST employees in public services violated the principle of equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argued that the law discriminated against other employees who were not members of the SC/ST community, and that the state had not collected sufficient data to demonstrate the backwardness of the SC/ST community. Another legal question was whether the state had the power to enact laws providing for reservation in promotions for SC/ST employees in public services. The petitioners argued that this power was not conferred on the state by the Indian Constitution, and that the state had exceeded its constitutional mandate by enacting such a law. The case also raised the question of whether reservation in promotions for SC/ST employees in public services was a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argued that it was not, and that the state could not impose such a reservation without a proper constitutional amendment. The case also addressed the issue of whether there was a need for quantifiable data to demonstrate the backwardness of the SC/ST community before providing reservation in promotions. The petitioners argued that the state had not collected sufficient data to demonstrate the backwardness of the SC/ST community, while the respondents argued that such data was not required. Finally, the case raised the question of whether the state could provide reservation in promotions for SC/ST employees in public services without affecting the efficiency and quality of public services. The petitioners argued that such a reservation would lead to the promotion of less-qualified employees over more-qualified ones, thus compromising the quality and efficiency of public services. Ultimately, the larger bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the law providing for reservation in promotions for SC/ST employees in public services, resolving many of these legal questions in favour of the state and the SC/ST community.
POST-CASE YEARS AND DEVELOPMENT –
After the Mukesh Kumar and Anr v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors case, there have been several developments related to the policy of affirmative action in India and the rights of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. One of the most significant developments was the passing of the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, which provided for reservation in promotions for SC/ST employees in public services and overturned the Supreme Court’s 2006 judgment in the M. Nagaraj case, which had imposed several conditions for such reservations. The 2019 amendment clarified that reservation in promotions for SC/ST employees did not require quantifiable data to demonstrate backwardness and that it was not necessary to demonstrate that the reservation did not affect the efficiency of public services. Another development was the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, which upheld the constitutional validity of the 2018 amendment to the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and clarified that anticipatory bail could not be granted in cases registered under the act. Despite these developments, there have also been concerns about the implementation of affirmative action policies and the protection of the rights of SC/ST communities. Reports of violence and discrimination against these communities continue to surface, and there have been calls for stronger enforcement of laws and policies designed to protect their rights. Additionally, there have been debates about the effectiveness of affirmative action policies and the need for more comprehensive approaches to address the root causes of inequality and discrimination in India.
CONCLUSION –
The Mukesh Kumar and Anr v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors case provides several important lessons for the legal system and society as a whole. Firstly, the case highlights the importance of upholding the constitutional rights of all citizens, especially marginalized communities. The policy of affirmative action is designed to promote equal opportunity and address historical injustices, and the court’s ruling in this case reaffirms the importance of these principles. Secondly, the case highlights the need for careful consideration of legal and constitutional questions, especially in cases with far-reaching implications. The legal and constitutional questions raised in this case were complex and required careful analysis and consideration by the court. Thirdly, the case highlights the importance of ongoing advocacy and vigilance to ensure that policies and laws designed to protect the rights of marginalized communities are effectively implemented and enforced. Despite the legal and constitutional framework in place, discrimination and violence against SC/ST communities continue to be a concern, and ongoing advocacy and vigilance are needed to address these issues. Finally, the case underscores the need for more comprehensive approaches to address the root causes of inequality and discrimination in society. Affirmative action policies and laws are important, but they must be complemented by broader efforts to address economic, social, and political inequalities, which are often the underlying causes of discrimination and marginalization.
written by Alden Vas 3rd Semester Law Student at The Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur
