Articles

JARNAIL SINGH VS LACHHMI NARAIN GUPTA : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh Vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta  ( 2018 ) 10 SCR 663  held that collection of quantifiable data showing backwardness of Scheduled Castes (SC)  and Scheduled Tribes (ST)  is not required for providing reservation in promotion.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney Vs Union of India ( 1992 ) Suppl. (3) SCC 217  has held that reservation in promotion is not permissible. To nullify the same, Parliament  passed Eighty Fifth Amendment whereby it inserted clause 4A in the Article 16 providing for reservation in promotion to Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. This amendment was challenged before the Supreme Court in M Nagaraj Vs Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212.

The Supreme Court in Nagaraj  held  Article 16 (4A) constitutional valid but directed  that before giving reservation the State has to show in each case (i) backwardness (ii) inadequacy of representation and (iii) administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation.  The Supreme Court observed that State is not bound to give reservation in promotion but if State decides to give reservation in promotion to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation in public employment  in addition to compliance with Article 335.

Various petitions were filed before the Supreme Court for revisiting the Nagaraj Judgment, which was referred to the Constitution Bench. The Supreme Court revisited Nagaraj judgment on following two aspects.

Whether quantifiable data for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes  is required for reservation in promotion  ?

The Supreme Court held that findings in Nagaraj in respect of collection of quantifiable data is in contradiction of the Indra Sawhney Judgment. In Indra Sawhney the Supreme Court  held that  test of backwardness will not apply to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes which indubitably falls within the expression “backward class of citizens”.

The Supreme Court noted that in E. V. Chinnaiah Vs State of A.P. (2005) 1 SCC 394  Scheduled Castes have been referred as the most backward among backward classes.  This is the reason that the Presidential List only contains those castes or groups which consist of untouchables.

The Supreme Court invalidated the finding of Nagraj to the extent that State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes  for providing reservation in promotion being contrary to the nine judge bench  judgment in Indra  Sahwney.

Whether provision of Creamy Layer can be applied on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ?

The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Thakur vs Union of India (2008 ) 6 SCC 1  has held that “creamy layer” principle is inapplicable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The Supreme  Court in this judgment differed from view taken in Ashok Kumar Thakur.  The Supreme Court observed that if Court applies creamy layer principle it does not tinker with Presidential List under Article 341 or 342 of the Constitution of India. Object of reservation will not be achieved if creamy layer of Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes  bag all jobs and perpetuate themselves and remaining sections of the that class remain poor. The Supreme Court held that Constitutional Courts will be within their jurisdiction to exclude creamy layer from while applying the principles of the equality under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court disagreed with the its observation in Ashok Thakur that creamy layer principle is a principle of identification and not principle of equality.

The Supreme Court held that creamy layer test to Scheduled Caste  and Scheduled Tribes propounded in Nagaraj does not interfere with Parliament’s power under Article 341 and Article 342 as such this aspect need not be revisited.

__________________________________

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *