Case Briefing: JARNAIL SINGH V. LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA
Case Title and Citation:
JARNAIL SINGH & OTHERS VERSUS LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA & OTHERS. (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.30621 OF 2011 and connected matters).
Date: September 26, 2018.
Facts:
The present group of cases arose out of two reference orders, the second dated 15.11.2017, which referred the correctness of the decision in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212, (“Nagaraj”), to a Constitution Bench. The controversy revolved around the interpretation of Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B).
Petitioners seeking reconsideration argued that Nagaraj wrongly mandated the State to collect quantifiable data showing the backwardness of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), contrary to Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, (“Indra Sawhney (1)”). They also argued that Nagaraj misread Indra Sawhney (1) to apply the creamy layer concept to SCs and STs, which, they contended, could only be altered by Parliament under Articles 341 and 342.
Respondents defending Nagaraj argued that the judgment correctly upheld the constitutional amendments on the ground that they do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. They argued that the creamy layer is applied by Courts on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution to exclude unequals within the class, and thus does not violate Articles 341 and 342.
Issue(s):
- Whether the judgment in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India needs to be revisited.
- Whether the requirement in Nagaraj that the State must collect quantifiable data showing the backwardness of SCs/STs for promotion is constitutionally valid.
- Whether the creamy layer principle applies to SCs/STs under Articles 14 and 16, or if its application constitutes an impermissible alteration of the Presidential List under Articles 341 and 342.
Rule of Law:
- Articles 14 and 16(1): The creamy layer principle sounds in Articles 14 and 16(1), as unequals (the creamy layer) cannot be treated as equals to the rest of the backward class.
- Article 16(4-A): Provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, for SCs/STs which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented.
- Articles 341 and 342: Only Parliament may, by law, include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes/Tribes.
- Indra Sawhney (1) (1992): The test or requirement of social and educational backwardness cannot be applied to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
- Article 335: The claims of SCs/STs must be taken into consideration, consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration.
Holding:
The judgment in Nagaraj does not need to be referred to a seven-Judge Bench.
The Court held that the conclusion in Nagaraj requiring the State to collect quantifiable data showing the backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is invalid to this extent.
The Court held that the part of the Nagaraj judgment applying the creamy layer test to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes does not need to be revisited, thereby upholding its applicability.
The State must collect quantifiable data showing the inadequacy of representation. The data would be relatable to the concerned cadre.
Reasoning:
1. Backwardness Data (Overruling Nagaraj in part): The requirement in Nagaraj to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of SCs/STs is directly contrary to the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney (1) (supra). Indra Sawhney (1) clearly held that backwardness requirements cannot be applied to SCs and STs, who are presumed to be backward.
2. Creamy Layer (Upholding Nagaraj): The application of the creamy layer principle sounds in Articles 14 and 16(1). This principle ensures that unequals (the creamy layer) are not treated equally to the truly backward members of the class, as this would violate the equality principle.
When a Court applies the creamy layer principle, it does not in any manner tinker with the Presidential List under Articles 341 or 342. The caste or group remains on the List; only those persons within that group who have come out of untouchability or backwardness by virtue of belonging to the creamy layer are excluded from the benefit of reservation.
Nagaraj correctly applied the creamy layer test to SCs and STs in exercise of application of the basic structure test to uphold the constitutional amendments. The entirety of the decision, far from being clearly erroneous, correctly applies the basic structure doctrine to uphold constitutional amendments on certain conditions which are based upon the equality principle as being part of basic structure.
3. Adequacy of Representation (Scope left to State): The Court declined the request to mandate the test for adequacy of representation be proportional to the SC/ST population. Nagaraj wisely left the test for determining adequacy of representation to the States. This is because efficiency of administration (under Article 335) has to be looked at every time promotions are made, and as the post gets higher, it may be necessary to reduce the number of SCs and STs in promotional posts.
