M. Nagaraj v Union of India
The constitutional amendments enabling reservation in promotion, consequential seniority and carry-forward are valid, but each State policy must show backwardness, inadequacy of representation and not impair administrative efficiency.
Facts
After Indra Sawhney barred reservation in promotions, Parliament enacted a series of amendments inserting Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) and amending Article 335 to permit reservation in promotions with consequential seniority and to relax the 50% carry-forward limit for SCs and STs. These enabling amendments were challenged as violating the basic structure of the Constitution.
Issues
- Whether the 77th, 81st, 82nd and 85th Amendments enabling promotion reservations violated the basic structure of the Constitution
- What conditions a State must satisfy before exercising the enabling power to reserve in promotions
Arguments
The petitioners argued the amendments destroyed the equality code and the basic-structure limits laid down in Indra Sawhney. The Union argued the amendments merely restored an enabling power to advance SCs and STs and did not abrogate the equality principle.
Held
The Court upheld the validity of the promotion amendments as constitutional, holding they did not destroy the basic structure but conferred only enabling powers. However, it imposed controlling conditions: before providing reservation in promotion, the State must collect quantifiable data demonstrating the backwardness of the class, the inadequacy of its representation in the service, and ensure that overall administrative efficiency under Article 335 is not compromised. It also reaffirmed the 50% ceiling, the creamy-layer principle and the concept of the equality code as part of the basic structure. Every individual promotion policy was thus made subject to judicial review against these tests.
Ratio decidendi
Parliament may by enabling amendment permit reservation in promotion for SCs/STs, but any actual policy must be justified by quantifiable data on backwardness, inadequacy of representation and maintenance of efficiency, and must respect the 50% ceiling and creamy-layer limits.
Significance
Leading post-Indra Sawhney authority sustaining promotion reservations while subjecting them to rigorous data-based judicial review; later clarified in Jarnail Singh v Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018), which dispensed with the requirement of fresh data on backwardness for SCs/STs while retaining the creamy-layer exclusion.
Related
Test yourself on Constitution of India. Application-level MCQs with instant scoring.
Take a subject test →Source: /Users/tiwari/Documents/All Law Books/raw/Oxform Constitution Commentary/CHAPTER-40-Reservations.md
