The judiciary and the Parliament have long engaged in bitter dispute over the reservation issue. Numerous political disputes that ultimately make their way to the Supreme Court have dogged the evolution of Indian law concerning reservations. Parliament typically responds by amending the Constitution to override any court ruling those conflicts with the State’s reservation policy.
jarnail singh v lachhmi narain gupta Case Facts
- A leave petition was filed in opposition to the ruling in M. Nagaraj and Others v. Union of India, which stated that the state had to demonstrate that the backward communities, schedule caste and schedule tribe, were socially, economically, and educationally behind in order to grant reservations for them to be promoted in government jobs.
- The representation of members of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes is insufficient.
- The administrative efficiency will rise as a result of the reservation.
- Furthermore, the ruling also required the governments to provide reservations without going above the 50% maximum.
- As a result, the nation’s states began to disagree with this ruling because it made it more difficult for them to provide reservations to underprivileged groups, such as the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe populations.
- This was viewed as going against the ruling in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, as it was unconstitutional to require the collection of measurable data to demonstrate backwardness. Furthermore, the introduction of the creamy layer idea for government employment promotions brought equality into doubt.
- In the end, the petitioner went before the court, claiming that the ruling violated Article 16’s provisions granting equal chance in public appointment cases. Ad verbatim, article 16(4) of the indian constitution states that nothing in this article prohibits the State from establishing a system for the reserve of positions or appointments for any underrepresented citizen class that the State deems to be inadequately represented in the State’s services.
jarnail singh v lachhmi narain gupta Issues
- Does a seven-judge court should have revisited the Nagraj Judgement.
- The second point concerned whether the States were required to gather measurable evidence to demonstrate the inadequate and backward state of the class while it was being advanced.
- The third question concerned whether promotions through the reservation should be denied to the scheduled tribes and the creamy layer within the scheduled castes.
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The Supreme Court rejected the petitioner’s request for a bench of seven judges to hear the Nagaraj case, noting that a larger bench was not necessary. The Nagraj case ruling required the States to gather quantifiable evidence to demonstrate their ineligibility for reservation in public services and to create a provision for the advancement of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in employment and positions through reservation.
- The petitioner who supported gathering quantitative data stated that this kind of promotion would encourage unfair behaviour by others, necessitating an assessment of an individual’s backwardness. The distinction between those in the creamy layer and those in the non-creamy layer begins to blur after a particular position or level of power at work. As a result, the individual shouldn’t be left out of the creamy layer’s reserve scope.
Respondent:
- The Attorney General of India, Shri K.K. Venugopal, spearheaded the effort to reexamine the Nagaraj case. He claims that the Nagaraj case has to be re-examined on two grounds. First and foremost, the case of M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, in which the state demands quantitative data in order to make reservations, which is against the ruling in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.
- Furthermore, there was no need to gather statistics because scheduled castes and scheduled tribes were already regarded as “backward” socially and economically under articles 341 and 342 of the Indian constitution. Consequently, there shouldn’t be any more exams to confirm how inadequate and outdated their class is. The idea of a creamy layer was the subject of the second point.
- Nagraj’s conclusion is in conflict with the ruling of a nine-judge panel, Justice Nariman pointed out, because the Indra Sawhney case does not allow the collection of measurable data as a requirement for giving promotions through reservation. An additional contention surfaced about the notion of creamy layering, stating that it carries significant risk when applied to Scheduled tribes and castes.
jarnail singh v lachhmi narain gupta Judgment
- The court came to the conclusion that a seven-judge bench does not necessary to hear the Nagraj case ruling.
- In addition, the clause requiring the State to gather quantitative evidence of the schedule castes and schedule tribe backwardness is in conflict with the ruling of the nine-judge bench in the Indra Sawhney case, rendering it unconstitutional.
- The Indra Sawhney Case demonstrated that the topic of the “creamy layer” is irrelevant when discussing Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe.
- In addition, the Supreme Court upheld the Nagraj Judgement’s holding about the application of the creamy layer to promotions for schedule castes and schedule tribes.
- As a result, thousands of workers were not given the promotions they were owed. The creamy layer idea was seen by the court as an identification principle rather than an equality criterion.
The purpose of the reservation policy was to guarantee equal opportunity for individuals from various castes and social classes. Therefore, praise should be given to the judgment’s established premise of equal opportunity for members of SC/ST communities and members of all other backward classes, including the addition of a creamy layer. The elimination of the state’s requirement to prepare measurable data before granting reservations for promotions, however, is a contentious move since it would enable the government to award reservations without accepting accountability and would ultimately result in the absence of checks and balances on authority.
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf