Supreme Court directive on quota in promotions

Context

The Supreme Court asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal to compile the various issues being raised by States with regard to the application of a Constitution Bench judgment of 2006 in M. Nagaraj case.

Background of the directives

• The Central government made a plea to refer, the question whether creamy layer should apply or not to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community while providing them reservation in government promotions, to a seven-judge Bench.
• The Centre’s plea came despite the Supreme Court, in September 2018, in Jarnail Singh case, reiterating the Nagaraj judgment of 2006.

Some of the important cases related to reservation in promotion for SCs/STs

Observations of the Indira Sawhney Case 1992

• Article 16 (4) allows the state to make provisions for reservation of any backward class of citizens in appointments or posts but this did not apply to the promotions.
• This clearly affected the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled tribes and in order to continue the promotions.
• 81st Amendment
• Clause 4A was introduced saying that nothing in the mentioned article shall prevent the State from making any reservation in matters related to the promotion.
• Through the 81st Amendment, Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B)were added. 
• Nagraj case 2006

The constitutional validity of these provisions was challenged in the Nagraj Case and delivered by a five-judge bench. It included following provisions:

• If state wanted to make a provision for reservation in promotions for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes then it will have to collect ‘quantifiable data’ enough to show the backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment.
• The state also has to see that it’s reservation provision does not, in any case, breach the ceiling limit of 50 per cent or even wipe out the creamy layer.
• It introduced the concept of the creamy layer to promotions.

Jarnail Singh vs. LachhmiNarain Gupta 2018

It is also known as the ‘Reservation in Promotion Case’. A five-judge bench reviewed the judgment of a previous case dealing with the reservation for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotions to Government jobs or public services.

• The 2018 judgment had refused the government’s plea to refer the 2006 Nagaraj judgment to a seven-judge Bench.
• It rejected the Centre’s argument that Nagaraj misread the creamy layer concept by applying it to SC/ST.
• It modified the part of the Nagaraj verdict which required States to show quantifiable data to prove the ‘backwardness’ of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community to provide quota in promotion in public employment.