Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Amendments Enabling Reservation in Promotions for SCs and STs, Affirms Equality as Basic Structure

In landmark judgment on M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, Supreme Court balances affirmative action with constitutional equality, validates Articles 16(4A), 16(4B) and proviso to Article 335, and clarifies limits on reservation in public employment

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment delivered on October 19, 2006, upheld the constitutional validity of the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, the Constitution (Eighty-First Amendment) Act, 2000, the Constitution (Eighty-Second Amendment) Act, 2000, and the Constitution (Eighty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001. These amendments provide for reservation in promotions with consequential seniority for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in public employment, thereby reversing earlier judicial pronouncements restricting such reservations.

The lead case, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 61 of 2002, filed by M. Nagaraj and others, challenged these constitutional amendments as violative of the basic structure of the Constitution, especially the right to equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16. Petitioners contended that the amendments abrogated the Supreme Court’s previous decisions, notably the Indra Sawhney judgment which had confined reservation to initial appointments and had capped reservation at 50% to maintain administrative efficiency and equality.

The five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Justice S.H. Kapadia, undertook a detailed analysis of the doctrine of basic structure, the power of amendment under Article 368, and the constitutional scheme governing reservations in public employment. The Court emphasized that while the power of amendment under Article 368 is constituent and not limited by implied restrictions, it cannot alter or destroy the basic structure of the Constitution, including the principle of equality.

The Court reaffirmed that equality is a core feature of the Constitution’s basic structure and that Articles 14 and 16 guarantee equality before law and equality of opportunity in public employment. However, it recognized the complex balancing act between formal equality (equal treatment by law) and egalitarian equality (affirmative action to ensure substantive equality). The Court held that reservation is a constitutional tool to address historic social inequities and is valid if it satisfies three constitutional parameters: backwardness of the class, inadequacy of representation in public employment, and maintenance of overall administrative efficiency as mandated by Article 335.

Addressing the amendments specifically, the Court observed that:

- Article 16(4A) enables reservation in promotions for SCs and STs, subject to the State’s opinion on adequacy of representation, and is a carved-out provision from Article 16(4), retaining the original constitutional safeguards.

- Article 16(4B) provides that unfilled vacancies reserved in a year can be carried forward and treated as a separate class of vacancies for future years, thereby not violating the 50% ceiling on reservation in any single year.

- The proviso to Article 335 permits relaxation of qualifying marks or standards for SCs and STs in promotions, again within the control of administrative efficiency.

Significantly, the Court rejected the argument that the judicially evolved “catch-up” rule and “consequential seniority” are part of the basic structure or constitutional requirements. It held these are service jurisprudence concepts that the Parliament can alter by amendment. The amendments do not obliterate constitutional limitations but provide enabling provisions allowing States discretion to make reservations while subject to judicial review for arbitrariness or excessiveness.

The Court also upheld sub-classification between SC/ST and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), as earlier recognized in Indra Sawhney, to prevent larger OBC quotas from swallowing up the reserved opportunities for SCs and STs.

While upholding the amendments, the Court clarified that the extent of reservation remains subject to fact-based scrutiny to ensure it does not exceed the 50% ceiling or violate the “creamy layer” exclusion principle. States must substantiate reservations with quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequate representation without compromising administrative efficiency.

The Court underscored the dynamic nature of the Constitution and the necessity to adapt legal provisions to social realities, affirming that constitutional amendments enabling reservation in promotions for SCs and STs serve the larger goal of social justice without damaging the Constitution’s basic structure.

This judgment is a landmark in constitutional law, reaffirming the balance between individual rights and affirmative action, and providing clarity on the scope of reservation policies in public employment within the framework of the Constitution.

Statutory provisions

Article 14, Article 16(1), Article 16(3), Article 16(4), Article 16(4A), Article 16(4B), Article 17, Article 32, Article 38, Article 46, Article 335, Article 368



M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 132748