Read Time: 08 minutes

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Central Government to file its affidavit giving particulars about the contemporaneous cadre wise data while considering the specific cases in a batch of petitions over the issue of reservation in promotion and seeking clarification in the Jarnail Singh case.

A bench of Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai was hearing the group of matters arising from the judgments of High Courts of Delhi and Punjab & Haryana over the issue.

The bench noted, "In the meanwhile, the Union of India is directed to file an affidavit, giving particulars about the contemporaneous cadre wise data, after serving a copy on the other side. Details of consideration of the data to determine inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs for providing reservations in promotions."

Earlier, the bench had pronounced its judgment over the limited issue suggested by the Attorney General of India KK Venugopal, whereas, the bench had not expressed any opinion in the specific cases. The bench had instead made batches of cases on the basis of the issues and listed the two or three groups on 24th February 2022 on which the bench will deal with the issues respectively.

The apex court had held that the states are obligated to collect quantifiable data for determining the representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCs and STs) in the state in the issue of extending reservation in promotions. [Jarnail Singh Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta].

While pronouncing the judgment, the same division bench had said, “The review has to be conducted for the purpose of determining representation of the people belonging to the SC and ST category by the State before implementing reservation quota in the promotion.”

Several states have approached the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition as many High Courts had struck down the provisions providing reservation in promotion along with an application seeking clarification in the Jarnail Singh case. Brief submissions made by the counsels can be read here.

Background

The Apex Court in Jarnail Singh on September 26, 2018, held that the judgment in Nagaraj does not need to be referred to a seven–judge bench but stated that the conclusion in Nagaraj 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 (1) (supra) is held to be invalid to this extent.

The bench in its judgment dated September 26, introduced the principle excluding the creamy layer, while further directing States to refrain from extending reservation to SC/STs falling into the category of creamy layer.

The judgment of Nagaraj had said, "We reiterate that the ceiling-limit of 50%, the concept of creamy layer and the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency are all constitutional requirements without which the structure of equality of opportunity in Article 16 would collapse."

"The main issue concerns the 'extent of reservation'. In this regard the concerned State would have to show in each case the existence of the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation. As stated above, the impugned provision is an enabling provision. The state is not bound to make reservations for SCs/STs in matter of promotions," the Nagaraj judgment read.

However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance of Article 335. It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling-limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely," the Nagaraj judgment had penned.

Case Title: Jarnail Singh Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta