2018 (9) TMI 2087 - SC - Indian Laws

Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment - Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts - HELD THAT - It is easy to see the pattern of Article 46 being followed in Article 16(4) and Article 16(4-A). Whereas backward classes in Article 16(4) is equivalent to the weaker sections of the people in Article 46, and is the overall genus, the species of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is separately mentioned in the latter part of Article 46 and Article 16(4-A). This is for the reason, as has been pointed out by us earlier, that the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes are the most backward or the weakest of the weaker sections of society, and are, therefore, presumed to be backward. It can be seen that when seats are to be reserved in the House of the People for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the test of proportionality to the population is mandated by the Constitution. The difference in language between this provision and Article 16(4-A) is important, and we decline the invitation of the learned Attorney General to say any more in this behalf. The conclusion in M. NAGARAJ ORS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2006 (10) TMI 420 - SUPREME COURT that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, being contrary to the nine-Judge Bench in INDRA SAWHNEY ETC. ETC VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, ETC. 1992 (11) TMI 277 - SUPREME COURT is held to be invalid to this extent. Application disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Articles 16(4-A), 16(4-B), 335, 341, and 342 of the Constitution of India.
2. Validity and application of the creamy layer principle to Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
3. Requirement of quantifiable data for backwardness and adequacy of representation in promotions.
4. Consistency of the judgment in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India with previous judgments, particularly Indra Sawhney (1) and E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Articles 16(4-A), 16(4-B), 335, 341, and 342:
The judgment addresses the interpretation of Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) which allow the State to make provisions for reservation in promotions with consequential seniority for SCs and STs if they are not adequately represented in the services under the State. Article 335 emphasizes that the claims of SCs and STs must be considered consistently with the maintenance of efficiency in administration. Articles 341 and 342 pertain to the Presidential notification of SCs and STs and the exclusive power of Parliament to amend these lists.

2. Validity and Application of the Creamy Layer Principle:
The Court reaffirmed that the creamy layer principle is a facet of the equality principle under Articles 14 and 16(1) and is applicable to SCs and STs to ensure that the benefits of reservation reach the truly disadvantaged members of these communities. The creamy layer principle aims to exclude the more advanced sections within these communities from availing reservation benefits. The Court clarified that this principle does not affect the inclusion of SCs and STs in the Presidential List but only their eligibility for reservation benefits.

3. Requirement of Quantifiable Data:
The Court held that the requirement for the State to collect quantifiable data showing the backwardness of SCs and STs, as stated in Nagaraj, is contrary to the nine-Judge Bench decision in Indra Sawhney (1). The judgment in Indra Sawhney (1) established that SCs and STs are presumed to be backward, and therefore, the collection of quantifiable data for backwardness is unnecessary. However, the State must still collect quantifiable data to show the inadequacy of representation in promotional posts.

4. Consistency with Previous Judgments:
The Court examined the consistency of Nagaraj with Indra Sawhney (1) and Chinnaiah. It was noted that Nagaraj did not refer to Chinnaiah, which dealt with the prohibition of sub-classification within SCs and STs by State legislatures. The Court clarified that Chinnaiah's primary ratio was that only Parliament could amend the Presidential List, and it did not address the creamy layer principle. The Court concluded that Nagaraj's application of the creamy layer principle does not conflict with Chinnaiah, as it pertains to the application of reservation benefits and not the alteration of the Presidential List.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the judgment in Nagaraj does not need to be referred to a larger Bench. However, the requirement for the State to collect quantifiable data on the backwardness of SCs and STs is invalid as it contradicts the Indra Sawhney (1) judgment. The creamy layer principle is valid and applicable to SCs and STs to ensure that reservation benefits reach the most disadvantaged members of these communities. The States must collect quantifiable data to show the inadequacy of representation in promotional posts, which can be tested by the Courts.

← Previous Next →