An important case addressing affirmative action in India is m nagaraj vs union of india (2006). The 77th and 81st Constitutional Amendments, which guaranteed reservations in promotions for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (SCs/STs) in public service, were challenged in court as not being constitutionally legitimate. Whether the constitutional revisions invalidated the fundamental rights protected by Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Indian Constitution was the main question at stake in this case.
m nagaraj vs union of india Case Facts
- The present appeal pertains to a challenge against the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001, which retroactively incorporates Article 16(4A) pertaining to reservation in promotion to notable seniority into the Indian Constitution.
- The petitioners contend that because this amendment reverses earlier court rulings and significantly modifies the right to equality, which is a component of the constitution’s core structure, it is incompatible with the text of the constitution and breaches its fundamental principles.
- According to the petitioners, equality under Article 16(1) entails prompt promotion rather than seniority as a result. They further cite the verdict in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, which held that reservations for members of the underprivileged classes are only permitted at the time of initial hiring and not at the time of promotion.
- However, by inserting Article 16(4A), the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act of 1995 reinstated reservation in promotion, which the petitioners argue is in violation of the Indra Sawhney verdict.
- The petitioners contend further that roster-point promotees will suffer greatly from giving them accelerated seniority since they will advance to higher positions more quickly than general merit promotees.
- The petitioners claimed that this would lead to unequal treatment in the proportion of officers from the reserved category in higher-level roles.
- In general, the petitioners contend that the challenged amendment contradicts the essential framework of the constitution and significantly modifies the right to equality, making it unconstitutional and likely to be overturned.
m nagaraj vs union of india Issues
- Is it accurate to say that the judgments rendered in response to the Supreme Court’s decision regarding promotions were applied backwards in time?
- Are fairness and equality included in the essential characteristics, guiding principles, and provisions of the constitution?
- To what extent, if at all, have the contentious constitutional changes expanded legislative authority to the point where all constitutional limitations have been removed?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- In m nagaraj vs union of india, the appellants contended that equality is a fundamental component of the Constitution, as emphasized in Article 14. They argue that it is impossible to analyze the Constitution without equity, particularly when it comes to employment in the public sector.
- The emphasis is on Article 16 as a particular guarantee for employment equity. The worry expressed is that reverse discrimination may result if the equality balance is upset in favour of group norms.
Respondent:
- In m nagaraj vs union of india, the respondents contended that the power to change the Constitution is a “constituent” power rather than a “constituted power,” suggesting that the Legislature’s ability to do so is unrestricted.
- They did, however, stress that changes shouldn’t go against the fundamental framework of the Constitution. It is claimed that the equality outlined in Articles 14 and 16 is not the same as the fundamental equality found in the Constitution.
- The respondents also argued that the fundamental elements of the Constitution, constitutional supremacy, democracy, secularism, and the separation of powers, do not pertain to the interpretation of Article 16’s balancing of reserved and public privileges.
- They contend that neither the right to consideration for promotion nor the body of precedent pertaining to public services are essential components of the Constitution.
m nagaraj vs union of india Judgment
- The Supreme Court maintained the constitutionality of all the challenged changes pertaining to the reservation of seats for SCs and STs in promotions.
- The court decided that the modifications did not go against Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution’s fundamental framework for equality.
- The court decided that the changes are enabling measures that permit the States to recognize backwardness and inadequate representation in promotions, but do not compel them to do so in order to maintain overall efficiency.
- The court did, however, rule that in order to justify reservation under the mandated constitutional requirements, such as the 50% ceiling limit and the creamy layer concept, the States must gather measurable facts and refrain from extending reservation indefinitely.
- The court made it clear that a reservation cannot become excessive or go beyond the actual constitutional bounds, even in cases where the States had strong justifications.
- The court established guidelines for determining whether particular State Acts that allow for reservation in promotion are legitimate in given circumstances.
- The catch-up rule was also highlighted by the court.
- According to the catch-up rule, a candidate from a reserved category will be promoted before his senior general candidates in the feeder grade and will rank lower than them in the promoted category.
- The court ruled that the parliament had the authority to change both the catch-up rule and consequential seniority.
- The Constitution (81st constitutional amendment) Act, 2000 introduced Article 16(4B), which permitted the carrying over of unfilled vacancies reserved for SCs and STs to succeeding years, to be regarded independently from the vacancies of the year they are being filled, was affirmed by the Court as constitutionally legitimate.
- The Court noted that a temporal aspect is involved by removing the 50% ceiling on carry-over vacancies under Article 16(4B) while keeping the ceiling for current vacancies.
- According to Article 335, the States must now implement a time-cap based on the facts and circumstances in order to improve overall administrative effectiveness.
- The Court made it clear that, even in cases where there are unfilled vacancies, the States must demonstrate that they are behind schedule, that their representation is inadequate, and that their actions are in line with overall administrative efficiency.
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
