Summary
The Constitution Bench declined to refer M. Nagaraj to seven judges, but invalidated its requirement that States collect quantifiable data proving the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. That requirement conflicted with Indra Sawhney. The Court retained Nagaraj’s creamy-layer principle and the requirement of quantifiable data on inadequate representation, relatable to the concerned cadre and subject to judicial review. It declined to prescribe population proportion as the compulsory adequacy test. The referred issue was answered without deciding each underlying service dispute.
Issues
- Whether M. Nagaraj required reconsideration by a seven-judge Bench.
- Whether fresh quantifiable data on SC/ST backwardness could be required for reservation in promotions.
- Whether creamy-layer exclusion impermissibly altered the presidential lists.
- What data and standard governed inadequate representation in promotional posts.
Provisions considered
- Articles 16(4A), 16(4B) and 335, Constitution of IndiaThe enabling promotion-reservation provisions remained subject to constitutional safeguards, including assessment of inadequate representation and administrative efficiency. The Court rejected fresh proof of SC/ST backwardness, not the requirement for cadre-related representation data. (¶¶ 2, 14–17, 19–21)
- Articles 341 and 342, Constitution of IndiaExcluding creamy-layer individuals from reservation benefits did not remove their caste or tribe, or those individuals, from the presidential lists. The Court distinguished list identification from equality-based distribution of reservation benefits. (¶¶ 2, 13, 15–17)
- Article 330, Constitution of IndiaIts express population-proportionality formula contrasted with Article 16(4A), which did not prescribe that formula as the compulsory test for adequate representation. (¶ 20)
Held
- Nagaraj’s requirement of quantifiable data establishing SC/ST backwardness conflicted with the larger Bench in Indra Sawhney, which treated that backwardness as established. That portion of Nagaraj was invalid; “class” there referred to the SC/ST class rather than a class of posts. (¶¶ 14–15, 19, 21)
- The creamy-layer principle was an application of equality under Articles 14 and 16, ensuring that advanced individuals did not monopolise reservation benefits. Its application to SC/ST reservation in the context considered did not amend the presidential lists: the listed groups and the individuals’ membership of them remained intact. (¶ 15–17)
- The Court rejected the claimed conflict with E.V. Chinnaiah as a reason to revisit Nagaraj. Chinnaiah concerned a different issue involving a State subdivision statute; its own correctness and the separate reference concerning it were not decided here. (¶¶ 9–10, 13)
- Quantifiable data on inadequate representation remained necessary on Nagaraj’s parameters, was relatable to the concerned cadre and could be tested by courts. Invalidation of the backwardness-data requirement did not dispense with this separate inquiry. (¶¶ 17, 21)
- The Court declined to make SC/ST population proportion the mandatory adequacy test for promotional reservation. Article 16(4A) left assessment to States in relation to the promotional posts, with administrative efficiency considered as posts rose; Article 330 used materially different, express proportionality language. (¶ 19–20)
- A higher post could not itself justify reintroducing a requirement to prove the class’s backwardness, which would undermine the promotion-reservation amendments. The Court distinguished that argument from creamy-layer exclusion of individuals who no longer required reservation. (¶ 19)
- No seven-judge reference was required. Nagaraj continued subject to invalidation of the SC/ST backwardness-data requirement; the judgment answered the referred issue rather than granting final relief in each underlying case. (¶¶ 17, 21)
Result
Referred issue answered: no seven-judge reference; Nagaraj invalid only insofar as it required quantifiable proof of SC/ST backwardness. Cadre-related representation data and the other stated safeguards remained.